WASHINGTON — In a unanimous ruling on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a straight woman who claimed she faced a higher legal barrier in suing her employer for discrimination than she would have if she were gay. The decision, rendered against the backdrop of growing national tensions over diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, may open the door to a surge in so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits.
At the heart of the case is Marlean Ames, a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Lower courts had dismissed her lawsuit, saying she didn’t meet an outdated requirement known as the “background circumstances” test. That standard, first established by the D.C. Circuit Court in 1981, required plaintiffs from majority groups—such as white or straight individuals—to provide extra proof that their employer was the rare kind that discriminates against the majority. This legal hurdle has only been used by a handful of federal courts and has been widely debated for years.
But the Supreme Court made it clear: discrimination law does not draw lines between majority and minority groups. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans bias based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, applies equally to everyone—regardless of their identity.
Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the idea that plaintiffs like Ames should have to meet any additional burden to prove discrimination just because they are not part of a minority group. “Nothing Ohio has said, in its brief or at oral argument, persuades us otherwise,” she wrote.
Ames argued that her case was prematurely dismissed and would have likely proceeded if the roles were reversed—if she had been gay and the individuals who received the promotions she sought were straight. She had twice been denied advancement at the Department of Youth Services, despite believing she was more qualified than the candidates chosen, both of whom were gay.
Her legal team claimed that had the courts treated her claim equally under the law—as they would have for a minority claimant—she would have been allowed to present more evidence and possibly proceed to trial.
During oral arguments in February, Ohio’s solicitor general, T. Elliot Gaiser, distanced the state from the controversial language used by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when it dismissed Ames’ case. Still, he insisted that Ames had failed to present enough evidence to show that her sexual orientation had any bearing on the employment decisions in question.
Ohio officials maintained that Ames was passed over not because she is straight, but because of perceived deficiencies in her leadership and vision. They argued that the promotions went to candidates with stronger qualifications better aligned with the department’s evolving mission—especially its increased focus on combatting sexual violence in juvenile detention facilities.
After being denied promotion twice, Ames was later demoted from her role as an administrator. Officials stated that she was not proactive enough in addressing the department’s renewed commitment to protecting youth in its custody.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling now sets a significant precedent. By discarding the “background circumstances” test, the Court effectively levels the playing field for all Title VII discrimination claims, regardless of the plaintiff’s identity. Legal analysts suggest the decision may encourage more individuals who believe they’ve been unfairly treated—even if they are part of a majority group—to bring their cases forward.
The ruling also signals a broader shift in how the judiciary interprets workplace discrimination, especially amid rising debates around DEI efforts and their real or perceived impact on fairness in hiring and promotion. While the facts of Ames’ case remain contested, the legal message is clear: Title VII is designed to protect everyone—equally.
