- The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to make it easier for plaintiffs from majority groups (e.g., white or straight individuals) to file «reverse discrimination» lawsuits, potentially reshaping how workplace bias claims are handled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Marlean Ames, a heterosexual Ohio woman, alleges she was denied a promotion and demoted in favor of less qualified LGBTQ+ colleagues, claiming her sexual orientation was the deciding factor. Lower courts dismissed her case, citing a higher evidentiary standard for majority-group plaintiffs.
- During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices expressed concerns about the «background circumstances» rule, which requires majority-group plaintiffs to provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs. Justices suggested the rule may conflict with Title VII’s mandate to protect all individuals equally.
- A ruling in Ames’ favor could embolden lawsuits challenging workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, particularly in conservative-leaning states. Conservative groups have already supported Ames, while civil rights organizations warn such a ruling could undermine efforts to address systemic discrimination.
- If the Supreme Court revives Ames’ case, it could set a precedent making it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to pursue discrimination claims, potentially leading to a surge in lawsuits. The ruling could also reignite debates over DEI policies and their role in addressing historical inequities.
The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to lower the bar for so-called «reverse discrimination» lawsuits, a move that could fundamentally alter how workplace bias claims are adjudicated. At the heart of the case is Marlean Ames, a 60-year-old Ohio woman who claims she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. The justices’ apparent willingness to revive her lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have already faced significant backlash from conservatives.
The case that could redefine discrimination law
Marlean Ames, a longtime employee of Ohio’s Department of Youth Services, alleges that in 2019 she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and later demoted in favor of a gay man. Ames contends that both individuals were less qualified than her and that her sexual orientation was the deciding factor. Her lawsuit, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was dismissed by lower courts, which ruled that she failed to meet the heightened evidentiary standard required for plaintiffs from «majority groups.»
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, concluded that Ames had not demonstrated the «background circumstances» necessary to prove that her employer was «that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.» This standard, applied in some federal courts, requires plaintiffs from majority groups—such as white or straight individuals—to provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to prove discrimination.
During oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of this two-tiered system. Xiao Wang, Ames’ attorney, argued that the «background circumstances» rule is inconsistent with Title VII’s mandate to protect all individuals from discrimination. «Title VII aims to eradicate all discrimination in the workplace,» Wang told the justices. «But the background circumstances rule doesn’t do that. It instructs courts to practice it by sorting individuals into majority and minority groups based on their race, their sex, or their protected characteristic.»
A unanimous court?
Remarkably, both conservative and liberal justices appeared to agree that the current standard is flawed. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether ruling in Ames’ favor would «throw the door wide open to Title VII suits,» but she also suggested that the court should ensure all plaintiffs are treated equally under the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch went further, stating that there was «radical agreement» in the courtroom that the current standard is problematic.
Even Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser conceded that «everyone here agrees everyone should be treated equally.» This rare consensus suggests that the court may issue a unanimous or near-unanimous ruling in Ames’ favor, sending her case back to lower courts for reconsideration.
Historical context and broader implications
The Ames case arrives at a time of heightened debate over DEI initiatives in the workplace. Critics, including many conservatives, argue that such programs unfairly disadvantage white and straight employees. President Donald Trump, upon returning to office in January 2025, swiftly moved to dismantle DEI policies in federal agencies and encouraged private companies to follow suit.
A ruling in Ames’ favor could embolden similar lawsuits, particularly those challenging DEI programs. Conservative groups like America First Legal, which has close ties to the Trump administration, have already filed briefs in support of Ames, citing cases they have brought against companies like Starbucks and IBM for alleged race and sex discrimination.
However, civil rights organizations warn that such a ruling could undermine efforts to address historical and systemic discrimination. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and other groups argue that the «background circumstances» rule allows courts to account for the reality of discrimination against minority groups, which remains pervasive.
What’s next for Ames and workplace discrimination law?
If the Supreme Court rules in Ames’ favor, it could set a precedent that makes it easier for plaintiffs from majority groups to pursue discrimination claims. This could lead to a surge in lawsuits challenging DEI policies, particularly in conservative-leaning states.
For Ames, the ruling could mean a second chance to prove her case in court. She claims that her demotion resulted in a significant pay cut, from approximately 100,000 to 60,000 annually, and that her employer’s decisions were motivated by bias.
As the nation awaits the court’s decision, one thing is clear: the outcome of this case will have profound implications for the future of workplace discrimination law and the ongoing debate over diversity and inclusion in America. Whether it represents a victory for equal treatment or a setback for DEI initiatives depends on one’s perspective—but its impact will be felt for years to come.
Sources include: