CASE NAME

Ames v. State of Ohio Department of Youth Services

Download Opinionarrow_circle_right

Overview

Plaintiff (Ames), a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, sued Defendant arguing that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation (heterosexual) when Defendant denied her a promotion to Bureau Chief and demoted her from the position of PREA Administrator.

Details

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Ames's claim. The court found that Ames lacked evidence of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, requesting that the Court answer the question whether a majority-group plaintiff (e.g., heterosexual or white individuals) must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

On February 26 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case, and on June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that Title VII does not impose a heightened evidentiary standard on dominant groups. As a result, the "background circumstances" test was removed.

Court

U.S. Supreme Court

Status

Filed March 18, 2024 | Decided

Relevant Law

Title VII

Significance

Some circuits required plaintiffs in "reverse discrimination" cases to provide evidence that their employer was the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. The Supreme Court decision makes it easier for "reverse discrimination" plaintiffs to succeed in their lawsuits in some circuits.

Nonetheless, given that many circuits already apply the same standard to majority and minority plaintiffs, the implications of this decision are limited.