On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, resolving a longstanding circuit split under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that plaintiffs who are members of a majority group—such as individuals who identify as heterosexual or White—need not show “background circumstances” suggesting their employer is “unusual” in discriminating against the majority, to bring a Title VII claim.

The case arose from a lawsuit filed by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who alleged that she was demoted and replaced by a gay man under the supervision of a gay woman. Lower courts had dismissed her claim based on the “background circumstances” requirement, a heightened standard applied by several circuits, including the Sixth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits. The Supreme Court rejected that framework and confirmed that Title VII protects individuals from discrimination based on protected characteristics—regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group.

Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that Title VII protects individuals from discrimination based on protected characteristics—period.

The statute does not impose different standards depending on whether the plaintiff is in a majority or minority group.  The Court rejected the notion that certain classes of employees should face a more onerous threshold to litigation based solely on their group identity.

What does this mean for employers? The takeaway is clear: exposure to discrimination claims under Title VII is not limited to claims from historically marginalized groups. Any employee who alleges discrimination on a protected trait, including race, sex, religion, or national origin, may pursue a claim without needing to establish their employer has a pattern of discrimination against the majority.

A final note. While this case does not specifically concern a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, Justice Thomas suggests in his concurring opinion that the prevalence of DEI programs, recently the focus of national attention, has led to this “reverse discrimination”, stating “American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans” and “[i]nitiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.”