In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court decided Thursday that the case of a straight white woman who sued for discrimination based on her sexual orientation can proceed. The ruling is likely to support other cases of ‘reverse discrimination’ filed by members of majority groups.

Supreme Court rules against an extra legal burden for majority group members

In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Marlean Ames, a straight white woman who claimed she was passed over for promotion and ultimately demoted because of her sexual orientation. Ames sued, claiming that she had suffered discrimination, but lost in the lower courts. The federal Sixth Circuit, in its ruling against Ames and others, has required members of majority groups to meet an additional burden of proof called “background circumstances” when making circumstantial claims of discrimination. The Supreme Court rejected the “background circumstances” requirement, which Ames’ lawyers argued violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers workplace discrimination. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, saying that “we conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs.”

More ‘reverse discrimination’ cases may be on the way

Experts predict that the Supreme Court’s ruling will lead to additional members of majority groups suing for so-called “reverse discrimination.” This impact will likely be heightened by other recent changes, such as the 2023 Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in college admissions and the Trump administration’s policies against DEI and other diversity-related programs. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew this connection in a concurrent opinion that he authored, claiming that “a number of this nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.” Thomas also claimed that “American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans.”

Ames’ case moves back to the lower courts

The Supreme Court’s decision does not answer the question of whether Ames faced discrimination. Ames began working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004. In 2019, she was passed over for a management position for which she applied, which was given to a lesbian woman instead. Ames was later demoted, and her old job was given to a gay man. Ames continues to claim that her orientation led to her being passed over and then given a lesser role. Her employers, however, say she was not promoted because they lacked confidence that she would perform well in the management position, adding that she was “abrasive” and interviewed poorly.

Ames’ case will return to the lower courts, but the Supreme Court ruling will make it relatively less difficult for her to make her case. It may also encourage a number of other lawsuits by members of majority groups, even as the federal government remains hostile toward policies and initiatives aimed at benefiting members of minority and marginalized groups in the country.

Reverse Discrimination

Get relevant content delivered to you once a week