In a unanimous decision that could reshape how discrimination lawsuits are handled in the U.S., the Supreme Court has made it easier for individuals from majority groups—such as heterosexual or white Americans—to pursue workplace discrimination claims.
The landmark ruling revives the case of Marlean Ames, a 61-year-old heterosexual woman from Ohio, who claims she was denied a promotion and later demoted because of her sexual orientation. The decision, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, overturns a lower court’s dismissal of Ames’s lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services.
Ames said she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and later demoted in favor of a gay man. She argued that she was more qualified and that her sexual orientation played a role in the decisions. According to her, “I was straight and pushed aside for them.”
The core legal issue centered around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, and—following more recent interpretations—sexual orientation. While Title VII is meant to protect everyone equally, some courts, including the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, have required plaintiffs from majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof. Specifically, they’ve needed to provide “background circumstances” showing that their employer is unusually inclined to discriminate against majority groups.
But the Supreme Court rejected that approach.
Justice Jackson wrote, “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” In other words, whether someone is in a majority or minority group should not affect the process of proving discrimination under the law.
This decision comes amid a growing number of “reverse discrimination” cases in the U.S., as conservative groups challenge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in both public and private sectors. Former President Donald Trump has been vocal in dismantling DEI policies, urging companies and government agencies to rethink race- or gender-based initiatives.
While some conservative organizations applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling, others like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund voiced concern. They argued that removing the “background circumstances” test might ignore historical and ongoing biases faced by minorities, such as Black and LGBTQ+ communities.
Ames originally filed her lawsuit in 2020, seeking monetary compensation. The state of Ohio defended the employment decisions, saying they were part of a departmental restructuring. Officials claimed Ames lacked the necessary leadership skills for the role, and noted that the final hiring decisions were made by heterosexual supervisors.
The case was first heard by the Supreme Court in February 2025. With Thursday’s ruling, it now heads back to the lower court for reconsideration—this time without the added burden of proving her employer discriminates against the majority.
The implications of this case could be far-reaching. Employers may need to reassess how they justify hiring and promotion decisions—especially in workplaces with active DEI policies. And for individuals like Ames, this ruling means their claims can finally be evaluated on equal footing.
