Will the Supreme Court Reshape Reverse Discrimination Law?
Why Should You Focus On Employee Data Privacy?
April 15, 2025
Executive Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether majority-group plaintiffs in discrimination cases should face higher legal barriers than minority plaintiffs. The Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services case challenges the “background circumstances” requirement imposed in some circuits that creates an extra burden of proof for reverse discrimination claims.
I’m Ty Hyderally, an employment attorney licensed in New Jersey and New York. I’d like to share my perspective on this potentially landmark case, and what it means.
The outcome could have huge impacts on workplace DEI initiatives and create new legal considerations for employers and employees.
What Is Reverse Discrimination Under Federal Employment Law?
Reverse discrimination refers to allegations that a person from a majority group—such as a white or heterosexual employee—was unfairly treated in favor of someone from a minority group.
These cases fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII, any individual is protected from workplace discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and other characteristics.
Current Legal Standard
Some federal courts apply a higher standard in these cases. IOften, they require majority-group plaintiffs to show that their employer had a pattern or tendency to discriminate against the majority. This added burden is known as the “background circumstances” requirement, and that’s the linchpin of the case before the Supreme Court.
What Is the Ames Case and Why Is It Headed to the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court will review Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case involves a heterosexual woman who claims she lost out on promotions and was demoted in favor of gay colleagues.
Marlean Ames served as a PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) Administrator. She says she was removed from that position and later denied a leadership role, despite strong qualifications and experience.
Case History
Lower courts dismissed her claims, stating she failed to prove “background circumstances,” a requirement not imposed on minority plaintiffs. The Supreme Court will now decide whether this extra hurdle should remain part of federal discrimination law.
What Are ‘Background Circumstances’ in Reverse Discrimination Cases?
“Background circumstances” refer to evidence showing that an employer is the unusual type that would discriminate against majority groups, a requirement that some jurisdictions place on majority plaintiffs.
In some jurisdictions, majority-group plaintiffs must go beyond the standard tests for proving discrimination. They must show background circumstances suggesting the employer is “that unusual” workplace that discriminates against the majority.
Ways to Prove Background Circumstances
Courts have allowed this to be proven by:
- Showing a minority-group member made the adverse employment decision
- Producing statistics or patterns indicating bias against the majority
- Demonstrating preferential treatment of minority employees in similar situations
- Providing direct evidence of anti-majority sentiment in company communications
The Sixth Circuit’s Reasoning
In Ames’s case, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames’s claim couldn’t move forward. They cited the fact that heterosexual supervisors made the key decisions, and that Ames provided no statistical pattern of bias as their reasons for doing so.
Circuit Split on This Issue
But, not all circuits follow this rule. Some courts have rejected the idea that majority plaintiffs should face a higher threshold, citing Title VII’s plain text: it applies to “any individual.”
Why Does This Supreme Court Case Matter to Workers and Employers?
This case could reset the rules for reverse discrimination claims nationwide. If the Court removes the background circumstances requirement, it will make it easier for white or heterosexual workers to bring discrimination lawsuits under Title VII.
Potential Impacts
Why that matters:
- It could significantly increase litigation against workplace DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs
- Employers may face new legal risks if hiring or promotion decisions appear to be based on diversity targets rather than merit
- Companies may need to more carefully document decision-making processes to avoid liability
- Plaintiffs from majority groups would face the same legal standard as minority plaintiffs
In short, a ruling for Ames could change how HR departments across the country manage staffing, diversity goals, and performance evaluations.
What Are the Legal Arguments on Both Sides?
The debate centers on whether Title VII allows different legal standards based on the plaintiff’s group identity.
Arguments Supporting the Background Circumstances Test
Those supporting the current rule say:
- Discrimination against majority groups is statistically rare
- The higher standard is needed to filter out weak or politicized lawsuits
- Historical patterns of discrimination justify different standards
- The test serves as an efficiency mechanism for courts
Arguments Against the Background Circumstances Test
Those opposing the rule argue:
- Title VII’s language protects all individuals, regardless of background
- Imposing higher burdens on some plaintiffs contradicts the statute’s intent
- It creates unequal treatment based on demographic status alone
- The test has no basis in the statutory text of Title VII
Judicial Perspectives
One Sixth Circuit judge agreed with Ames’s position, writing that the background circumstances test effectively discriminates by applying different rules to different plaintiffs. That contradicts Title VII itself.
How Could This Decision Change DEI Policies?
If the Court Sides with Ames
If the Court sides with Ames:
- Employers will need to justify diversity-related decisions with objective, performance-based evidence
- Hiring practices tied to DEI targets may become a greater litigation risk
- Reverse discrimination claims will no longer be subject to a higher threshold in certain circuits
- Companies may need to revise diversity initiatives to ensure they’re not vulnerable to claims
If the Court Upholds Current Standards
If the Court upholds the current standard:
- Majority-group plaintiffs will continue to face extra proof burdens
- DEI-related claims will remain harder to pursue in circuits applying the background circumstances test
- The circuit split will continue, creating unequal application of federal law
- Employers may have more latitude in pursuing diversity goals
Best Practices Going Forward
Either way, employers should ensure employment decisions can be supported by clear, role-related qualifications and consistent internal procedures.
Reverse Discrimination FAQs
Does Title VII apply equally to all groups?
Title VII is the primary federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination against any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This protection applies regardless of whether the individual is part of a majority or minority group.
This is a legal need imposed in some courts that obliges majority-group plaintiffs to show that their employer is the rare kind that discriminates against the majority. It adds an extra layer of proof that minority plaintiffs do not need to meet. Critics say it introduces unequal treatment into a law meant to protect everyone equally.
Could this case affect DEI programs?
DEI programs (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) are organizational initiatives designed to increase representation and participation of different groups, create fair treatment, and foster a culture where all feel valued.
Yes. A ruling for Ames could place greater legal scrutiny on corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Employers may need to ensure all staffing decisions are clearly tied to performance and job-related criteria.
When will the Supreme Court rule?
The decision is expected by June 2025, when the Court ends its current term. The outcome will likely affect how lower courts interpret reverse discrimination claims for years to come, particularly in jurisdictions that currently apply the background circumstances rule.
What should employers do in the meantime?
Recommended Actions for Employers
Employers should proactively:
- Review their hiring and promotion practices to ensure decisions are based on objective qualifications
- Document decision-making processes thoroughly
- Check DEI initiatives for potential legal vulnerabilities
- Consider conducting a legal audit of current policies
- Train managers on non-discriminatory selection practices
Consulting with legal counsel can help reduce risk and prepare for potential changes in Title VII enforcement.
About the Author
Ty Hyderally is the owner of Hyderally & Associates, P.C., a prominent employment law firm with offices in Montclair, New Jersey and New York, New York. A seasoned litigator and former President of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NJ), Mr. Hyderally has been recognized among the Top Ten Leaders in Employment Law in Northern New Jersey.
What Should You Watch Moving Forward?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ames may clarify whether all plaintiffs under Title VII are treated equally—regardless of background—or whether some must meet a higher burden. The decision could reshape reverse discrimination and impact how businesses structure diversity efforts.
Key Implications to Track
- Whether the Court provides a universal standard for all discrimination claims
- How lower courts interpret and apply the ruling
- The response from corporate America about DEI initiatives
- Potential legislative attempts to codify standards either way
For employees and employers alike, the stakes are high. The outcome may not just shift legal precedent but also influence corporate policies and workplace equity initiatives across the country.
If you’re navigating complex workplace discrimination issues in New York or New Jersey, contact Ty Hyderally for knowledgeable, unbiased legal guidance grounded in civil rights law.
Resources:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0264p-06.pdf
