When Equality Becomes Unequal: The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Largely overlooked amid louder media controversies, on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (9–0) in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (USSC, 23-1039). The ruling introduces a subtle but far-reaching shift in how so-called “reverse discrimination” claims will be adjudicated moving forward.

The Court eliminated a barrier that had, for years, made it difficult for employees from perceived “majority” groups—such as white, male, or heterosexual individuals—to bring employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This landmark statute prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is one of the cornerstones of the U.S. legal framework on equal opportunity, designed to ensure that employment decisions are made on merit, not prejudice or group identity.

Case Background

In 2004, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, began working as an executive secretary at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She was promoted to program administrator in 2014 and received positive performance evaluations from her supervisor, a lesbian woman. In 2019, Ames applied for a department head position but was passed over in favor of another lesbian woman. Later, senior department officials—both heterosexual—removed Ames from her administrative role, replaced her with a gay man, and offered her a demotion back to her former position as executive secretary with a pay cut. She accepted, but later sued the state, alleging she was discriminated against for being heterosexual and a victim of reverse discrimination.

The Legal Hurdle: The “Background Circumstances” Rule

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Ames’ case at an early stage (summary judgment). Although it acknowledged that she met the basic legal threshold (known as the prima facie standard from McDonnell Douglas), the court imposed an additional evidentiary burden: the “background circumstances” doctrine.

Under this rule, Ames not only had to meet the prima facie standard but also prove that her employer was unusually inclined to discriminate against members of a majority group. Failing to meet this added requirement, her case was dismissed.

The prima facie test—established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973)—offers a framework for assessing claims of employment discrimination. A plaintiff must show:

1. They belong to a group protected by law (based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation);
2. They were qualified for the position;
3. They suffered an adverse employment action (e.g., were not hired or were demoted); and
4. The job went to someone outside their protected group, or the circumstances suggest discrimination.

Although not uniformly applied, some federal courts, including the Sixth Circuit, imposed a fifth requirement — the “background circumstances” requirement—for plaintiffs from majority groups.

Ames filed a writ of certiorari, a formal request for the Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court is not obligated to take every case presented to it; it typically selects cases that involve interpretative conflicts among lower courts and/or major constitutional and legal issues.

In Ames, the Court agreed to hear the case, determining it raised a critical issue: whether requiring a higher evidentiary burden for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII is constitutionally permissible. The Court also sought to resolve inconsistencies across federal circuits and unify the standard nationwide.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

Interpreting Title VII, the Court concluded that the statute makes no distinction between plaintiffs from minority or majority groups. Imposing an additional burden on majority-group plaintiffs was, therefore, legally baseless and unsupported by precedent. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration using only the standard prima facie test.

While the ruling was unanimous, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion. Reflecting the policy stance of the current administration, they criticized activist judges for creating “artificial” legal tests not grounded in statutory text. They also tied the case to broader concerns about the excesses of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) programs.

Trump-Era DEIA Policies and Their Judicial Aftermath

This judicial shift didn’t occur in a vacuum. During his presidency, Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders aimed at dismantling federal DEIA programs, particularly in public employment and institutional training (See Nobigrot, Malkah, “The Future of Corporate DEIA Policies Amid the Trump Administration’s Regulatory Shift,” Revista Eje Global, Special Report, April 2025, https://eje-global.com/reportes-especiales/). These orders prohibited training programs that promote “divisive” perspectives based on race or identity and mandated that institutions review equity-based policies favoring certain groups over others.

These executive actions also laid a cultural and legal groundwork legitimizing the idea that poorly designed inclusion policies could promote institutionalized reverse discrimination. In this climate, some federal judges—previously hesitant to rule in favor of white, heterosexual, or male plaintiffs due to political or social pressures—felt emboldened to reinterpret Title VII without ideological reservations. The Ames case thus became a vehicle to standardize judicial criteria and reinforce the principle that the law protects individuals, not groups.

Why Does This Matter?

Procedural Equality: From now on, all plaintiffs—regardless of whether they belong to historically marginalized groups—must meet the same legal standard to bring a discrimination claim.

Increased Reverse Discrimination Claims: In approximately 20 states and the District of Columbia, this decision makes it easier for majority-group employees to access the courts, potentially leading to a rise in such cases.

Closer Scrutiny of DEIA Policies: While the ruling does not invalidate inclusion policies, it opens the door for legal challenges from employees who believe they have been unfairly disadvantaged and discriminated against by them.

Political Context: During the Trump administration, several executive orders restricted or dismantled DEIA programs on the grounds of discrimination. Those policies laid the legal and cultural foundation for the current ruling.

A New Paradigm for Reverse Discrimination

The Ames ruling is part of a broader judicial trend revisiting group-preference policies, such as the following landmark decisions:

1. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023): The Court banned race-based admissions criteria in higher education.
2. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024): The Court broadened the concept of employment harm under Title VII.
3. Now, with Ames, it removes a significant procedural hurdle for majority-group plaintiffs.

These rulings signal a growing judicial—and political—concern that well-intentioned affirmative action and DEIA initiatives may, in some instances, be creating new forms of injustice.

Practical Implications

For Employers: Organizations must reassess their DEIA strategies to ensure they do not inadvertently disadvantage majority-group employees. Perceived fairness will be as important as original intent.

For Litigants: Reverse discrimination claims will become more viable, possibly triggering a new wave of employment litigation.

For Public Policy: The ruling serves as a warning to public agencies and private companies: no policy, however well-meaning, is above the letter of the law.

The Ames decision corrects a procedural imbalance that had limited access to justice for certain employees. In a politically polarized climate and amid a national debate on the future of DEIA, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message: the law protects everyone equally, regardless of group affiliation. That includes members of so-called “majority” groups. 

However, it also risks undermining the hard-won advances of historically marginalized groups in a society where equal footing and equal access opportunities remain far from guaranteed.