By: Jamie Davila, Esq. and Ty Hyderally, Esq.

Date: 6/10/2025

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States made the historic ruling in a unanimous 9-0 decision rejecting the lower court’s decision that a majority group must show “background circumstances” in addition to the normal requirements to prove a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex, color, and national origin[1].

The case is of an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who previously sued her employer with the claim that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian woman was a hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay as her position was taken over by a gay man. Ames sued her employer under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over these claims.

The lower court ruled in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, finding that Ames did not show proof of “background circumstances” that indicate hers is the unusual case where an employer is discriminating against the majority. On appeal, the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Ames would have prevailed if she was a gay woman but instead ruled against her due to her not meeting the additional requirement as part of a minority group. Ames appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court considered all arguments and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the majority, ruled that the “background circumstances rule can’t be squared with the text of the law or the court’s previous rulings.” … And nothing Ohio has said, in its brief or at oral argument, persuades us otherwise.”[2] The Supreme Court emphasized that the law itself bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and does not set different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups. This ruling makes it easier for individuals rom majority backgrounds such as white or straight to pursue claims alleging workplace “reverse discrimination.”

If you or someone to you know is experiencing harassment or discriminant treatment due to your gender, sexual orientation, or identity, please contact a lawyer who concentrates in the arena of Employment Law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-two (22) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.

[1] Zach Schonfeld, Supreme Court unanimously revives straight woman’s ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuit, The Hill, June 5, 2025, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5334394-supreme-court-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit/  (last visited on June 5, 2025).

[2] Maureen Groppe, Supreme Court sides with straight woman in ‘reverse discrimination’ case, USA Today, June 5, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/05/supreme-court-reverse-discrimination-marlean-ames-straight-lgbtq/82268898007/ (last visited on June 5, 2025).