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

February 24, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court established the standard required for a plaintiff to show a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination through the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) case law.[1]   The Court requires first that the Plaintiff has the burden to show that:  (1) the Plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) the  plaintiff was qualified for the position in question; (3) that an adverse employment action occurred; and (4) that the employer was motivated by discriminatory animus.  This fourth prong could be proven by facts surrounding that the position was filled by a person outside of the protected class of the plaintiff.[2]  Once the Plaintiff meets this burden, the burden shifts to the Defendant to put forth facts that demonstrate that they possessed a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for taking the adverse action in question.  The burden then shifts to the Plaintiff to show that this articulated reason from the Defendant is pretextual and or that the Defendant harbored a discriminatory animus.[3]

On January 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Licinio v. New York, Case No. 25-587, thus affirming the lower court’s decision. Julio Licinio was hired as the Dean of the College of Medicine at the State University of New York in Syracuse, New York, from 2017 to 2019.[4]  Licinio was removed from his position as Dean but was permitted to retain his position as a tenured professor with the position salary reduction. Licinio sued his employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that he was demoted in retaliation for laudable efforts he undertook as Dean to promote diversity at SUNY Upstate.[5]  Licinio further argued that some of SUNY Upstate’s reasons for his demotion was based on inadmissible hearsay evidence.[6] The District Court used the framework of the McDonnell Douglas decision and dismissed the discrimination and retaliation clams. Licinio appealed this decision and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit applied the same McDonnell Douglas reasoning and affirmed the lower court’s decision finding that Licinio failed to provide enough evidence that the Defendant’s reasons for his removal were pretextual. The appellate court specifically noted that “temporal proximity alone is insufficient.”

Licinio appealed the United States Court of Appeals’ decision and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the McDonnell Douglas decision. Licinio argued that the McDonnell Douglas requirement was unworkable and contrary to the text of Title VII. The Supreme Court did not require defendants to respond as they rejected to hear the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Although the McDonnell Douglas framework survived challenge in the Licinio matter, it did not fare as well in the Ames matter. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) was a pivotal case that the presently constituted SCOTUS was happy to entertain. This case talked the thorny issues that present in reverse discrimination cases.

In the past, it was well understood that when a plaintiff claimed reverse discrimination, he had the additional burden to prove the unusual employer or what was commonly referred to as the additional burden of proving “background circumstances”  Thus, when a white male asserted discrimination, he had to prove that the employer is one of the unusual entities that discriminates against the majority.[7]  However, due to the Supreme Court refusing to take the Licinio case, the McDonnell Douglas decision remains the controlling framework for indirect evidence discrimination and retaliation cases. The Ames decision clarified that Title VII protects every individual equally and made it easier for petitioners of reverse discrimination cases to meet the requirements of the burden of proof of a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination.

If you feel that you are the target of discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, or some other issue in the workplace, or if you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in 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 about 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] McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Robert O. Sheridan, Josh Myers, The U.S. Supreme Court Rejects the Opportunity to Overturn McDonnell Douglas, Nelson Mullins, February 9, 2026, https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/blogs/the-hr-minute/other/the-u-s-supreme-court-rejects-the-opportunity-to-overturn-mcdonnell-douglas#:~:text=Despite%20the%20plaintiff’s%20attacks%20on,20251114112427103_Licinio%2520Cert%2520Petition.pdf (Last visited on February 17, 2026).

[5] Licinio v. New York, Case No. 25-587, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-587/373673/20250904131852965_Licinio%20App%20for%20Ext.pdf

[6] Id.

[7] Thomas G. Eron, U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard in a “Reverse Discrimination” Case under Title VII, New York Labor Employment Law Report, June 9, 2025, https://www.bsk.com/new-york-labor-and-employment-law-report/u-s-supreme-court-clarifies-standard-in-a-ldquo-reverse-discrimination-rdquo-case-under-title-vii#:~:text=Justice%20Thomas%20was%20particularly%20critical,you%20are%20regularly%20in%20contact. (Last visited on February 17, 2026).