Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 8 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Washington, D.C.

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a claimant in Ohio, Marlean Ames, can move forward with her complaint alleging that her employer discriminated against her because she is heterosexual.

contentpilot/introduction

In a 9-0 decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court ruled that a “majority-group” plaintiff is not required to meet a higher burden of proof to establish a discrimination claim than is a “minority-group” plaintiff.

core/paragraph

Ames initially sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services in November 2020, alleging that she was wrongfully denied a promotion in favor of a lesbian who was not qualified for the role and was then demoted from her position and replaced with a gay man who should not have been eligible to take over her job.

In dismissing the case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that as a heterosexual woman, Ames needed to provide additional “background circumstances” as evidence that she was a victim of an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Sixth Circuit decision further indicated that Ames would have prevailed on her claims of discrimination if she was a lesbian, but because of her lack of minority status, the standard necessary to maintain the discrimination action is higher.

The Supreme Court reversed, noting that the “background circumstances” rule at issue in this case is a judicially created rule applied by the Sixth Circuit, which is also held or suggested to apply in alleged discrimination cases by the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals. The rule has not been applied in all federal circuits when considering alleged discrimination claims. When reversing the Sixth Circuit’s decision, Justice Brown Jackson pointed to the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, and nation of origin, as the basis for the majority opinion, stating, “As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” She went on to say that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” In short, the plain text of Title VII does not require a higher burden of proof for anyone to maintain a discrimination action.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote separately calling for the court to examine the broader discrimination framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, a 1973 decision that sets forth the process by which courts are to evaluate employment discrimination claims. The justices warned that the framework may not be a “workable and useful evidentiary tool.”

In sum, the Ames decision provides two key takeaways for employers moving forward:

The decision will make it easier for majority-group employees and applicants to maintain discrimination actions against employers, which may further stimulate the recent spike in “reverse discrimination” cases.

core/list-item

If the Supreme Court eventually eliminates the broader framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas, all precedent and guidance from cases decided after McDonnell Douglas will be less relevant. Many questions related to the analysis of discrimination claims will need to be resolved before employers have a sense of clear guidance.

core/list

core/separator

This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgment of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.

This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.

https://admin.thompsonhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Labor-Employment-Alert-Supreme-Court-Green-Lights-Reverse-Discrimination-Complaint.pdf

Supreme Court Green Lights “Reverse Discrimination” Complaint

Services