SCOTUS Ruling May Increase ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Cases

A U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 5 potentially opened the door to a flood of “reverse discrimination” claims by rejecting a higher evidentiary standard for majority group members trying to show unlawful discrimination. The ruling underscores the importance of ensuring your inclusive workplace culture emphasizes respect for all employees or else you risk being sued by many people in the majority like the plaintiff in this case, a heterosexual employee. 

As SHRM President and Chief Executive Officer Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP, has noted, with diversity established as inevitable, creating a culture of inclusion becomes the greater — and more crucial — challenge. 

In the case before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, is a straight woman who said she was denied a promotion and later demoted in favor of less-qualified colleagues due to discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over her sex and sexual orientation. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claim, ruling that she failed to provide “background circumstances” proving her employer discriminated against her. 

But in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this higher evidentiary standard for members of a majority group.

“As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” the court said. Instead, the court clarified, the disparate-treatment provision makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in employment.

SHRM Statement

In a statement, SHRM said, “The court’s ruling, alongside recent joint guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, signals an evolution in how Title VII protections should be understood by employers and employees alike. By eliminating the need to prove ‘background circumstances’ for ‘majority’ plaintiffs, the court removes a procedural barrier, reshaping how lower courts assess discrimination claims and preventing premature dismissals.”

SHRM added, “For employers, this ruling carries significant implications. It reaffirms Title VII’s fundamental role in prohibiting workplace discrimination and reinforces that employment decisions cannot be based on an individual’s protected characteristics — regardless of who that employee is. This should prompt organizations to reassess how they approach employment decisions, including hiring, promotions, terminations, and other workplace actions.

“Additionally, businesses should be diligent in maintaining proper documentation of these decisions to ensure compliance. While the long-term impact of this ruling remains uncertain, it undoubtedly challenges traditional understanding of workplace discrimination laws and may lead to an increase in litigation, particularly from plaintiffs historically considered part of the ‘majority.’ ”

Impact of the Court’s Decision  

“As a result of the court’s decision, the legal construct of a ‘reverse discrimination’ claim no longer exists,” said Jonathan Segal, an attorney with Duane Morris in Philadelphia and New York City. “But the likely impact of the decision will be to accelerate what previously were referred to as reverse discrimination claims, that is, claims by individuals who are white and/or male and/or straight.” 

Ames removes an obstacle to bringing majority-group discrimination claims in the six circuits that previously imposed a heightened burden on majority-group plaintiffs (6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and D.C.), Segal said. 

While a rise in majority-group discrimination claims is possible following Ames, the SHRM "Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Workplace Impacts" survey found that many HR professionals think it will have a minimal impact: 41% said the ruling would have a minimal impact, 27% said it would have a moderate impact, and 10% said it would have a significant impact.

However, more than three-quarters (77%) of surveyed HR professionals said their organizations’ workplace policies would be impacted. A total of 1,043 HR professionals were surveyed and answered on behalf of their employers.

Toolkit: SHRM's BEAM Framework

Action Steps 

Employers should take several actions in response to Ames, Segal recommended: 

• Assess inclusion and diversity initiatives to confirm they do not exhibit favoritism toward minority groups or exclude majority groups. These types of unlawful biases or exclusions are more likely to face challenges from majority-group employees, who will have a higher awareness of their legal rights as a result of the case. 
• Review management training programs on discrimination and harassment to ensure fairness and objectivity. Do not relegate discussion of discrimination or harassment against majority groups to an afterthought. For instance, when addressing discrimination, clearly state that it is equally unlawful to discriminate against men or women. In harassment training, carefully consider the examples that are used. Avoid portraying all perpetrators as majority-group members and all victims as individuals from minority groups. 
• Reassess the approach to managing legal risks. Specifically, do not overlook the potential for claims by majority-group employees stemming from adverse employment actions. For instance, offering less procedural fairness to a white man under the mistaken belief that he is not part of a protected class could lead to unequal treatment that forms the basis of a disparate-treatment claim. 

More Recommendations 

According to Alyesha Asghar, an attorney with Littler in Seattle, employers should also:  

• Ensure that all anti-discrimination policies are up-to-date and clearly prohibit discrimination against any group, including majority groups. 
• Apply all workplace policies uniformly to all employees, regardless of their background. This includes hiring, promotions, performance evaluations, and disciplinary actions. 
•  Ensure that all complaints are taken seriously and investigated promptly and thoroughly regardless of the identity of the complainant. 
•  Encourage open communication and provide channels for all employees to voice concerns without fear of retaliation. 
•  Use neutral and objective criteria for making employment decisions to avoid biases. Ensure that these criteria are consistently applied and documented. 

By taking these steps, employers can reduce the risk of discrimination claims from any group, Asghar said. 

Webinar: Supreme Court's Ames decision

Focus on Merit 

“There is no such thing as reverse discrimination,” said Chris Braham, an attorney with McDermott Will & Emery in Miami and Los Angeles. “Who is in the majority fluctuates. Women currently represent 50.5% of the U.S. population — should they have a higher burden of proof than men to show discrimination, and if that percentage drops by 1%, should that burden be in flux?” 

Any decision predicated on someone’s race or gender is impermissible, Braham emphasized. 

That view is consistent with interpretations from the Trump administration and acting U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas, said Julie Levinson Werner, an attorney with Lowenstein Sandler in New York City.  

“The Ames case is indicative of a larger trend in the current legal landscape around discrimination claims,” she said. “It is clear in 2025 that every employer is at risk of a discrimination claim from any employee, regardless of their specific characteristics.”