Supreme Court Takes Up the Issue of Reverse Discrimination

The Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025, decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services removed one of the barriers Michigan employees previously faced in bringing claims of reverse discrimination (i.e., discrimination targeted at an individual not part of a minority group). This decision could result in an increase to the volume of claims that Michigan employers will face.

In the case, Plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her when she failed to receive a promotion and was demoted in favor of gay and lesbian employees. The Ohio trial court dismissed her case because Ames had failed to satisfy an enhanced standard for reverse discrimination cases. Under prior precedent from the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, individuals claiming reverse discrimination were required to provide, in addition to the usual proof requirements, evidence of “background circumstances” suggesting reverse discrimination. 

When this issue reached the Supreme Court, it reversed. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs asserting claims of reverse discrimination only need to follow the proof requirements for claimants making traditional discrimination claims. Thus, the additional “background circumstances” requirement is invalid. The Supreme Court held that any individual bringing claims of discrimination under Title VII must meet the same burden, regardless of whether they are part of a traditionally minority or traditionally majority group.   

In practice, this decision should not cause Michigan employers to change any policies or behavior, though it may result in an increased number of claims. Employers should continue to refrain from engaging in discriminatory decision making when it comes to all employees, regardless of whether they are part of a traditionally minority or traditionally majority group, and should continue to monitor the legal landscape as it evolves in this area. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please reach out to your Honigman attorney for additional guidance.