Supreme Court Rules on “Reverse-Discrimination” Employment Claim
The US Supreme Court recently issued a decision in an employment discrimination claim involving a case of “reverse discrimination.” As The New York Times explained it, the Court “unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group. The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, has led to significant commentary, as well as concern that the Court’s decision will make it more difficult for marginalized job applicants and employees to prove employment discrimination.
Our Palm Beach Gardens employment discrimination attorneys can tell you more about the Ames case and its implications for future employment discrimination cases in Florida.
Title VII Does Not Require a Heightened Evidentiary Standard for a Plaintiff in a Majority Group
In Ames, the plaintiff, a heterosexual woman, filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after being denied a management position for which a lesbian woman was hired instead, according to the Court, and after being subsequently demoted and having her previous role filled by a gay man. The plaintiff argued that “she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation,” which she argued is an unlawful form of discrimination under Title VII.
The district court and the appeals court applied an evidentiary standard to the case known as the “background circumstances” rule, which essentially holds majority-group plaintiffs to a higher evidentiary standard in discrimination cases. In other words, a heterosexual employee would be held to a higher evidentiary standard than an LGBTQ employee, or a white employee would be held to a higher evidentiary standard than a Black employee.
The Court’s decision in Ames focused on an understanding that all nine of the justices shared in the unanimous decision: that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” In its ruling, the Court made clear that plaintiffs in majority groups cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary standard for proving discrimination, including what the lower courts in this case applied, the “background circumstances” rule.
Implications of Ames for Employment Discrimination Claims Under Title VII
What does the Ames decision mean for employment discrimination claims in Florida? In short, when a job applicant or employee files an employment discrimination claim under Title VII, they will be held to the same evidentiary standard regardless of whether they are part of a minority group or a majority group.
The Court makes clear that “the text of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.”
Contact a Palm Beach Gardens Employment Discrimination Lawyer
Do you have questions about filing an employment discrimination claim in South Florida, or specific questions about how Ames could be applicable to the discrimination you may have experienced in your workplace? An experienced Palm Beach Gardens employment discrimination attorney at Sconzo Law Office can speak with you today about your case. Contact us for more information.
Sources:
nytimes.com/2025/06/05/us/politics/supreme-court-straight-woman-workplace-discrimination.html
supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf