On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court altered the landscape for employers facing “reverse discrimination” Title VII lawsuits in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and DC Circuits, by striking down a rule that had required plaintiffs from “majority groups” to allege additional “background circumstances” to state a prima facie case of employment discrimination.  Examples of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” included statistical data that the employer had engaged in a pattern of discrimination against majority groups or a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision that allegedly harmed the member of the majority group.   In the other circuits, no such additional pleading requirement was required in reverse discrimination lawsuits.  Justice Jackson authored the Court’s 9-0 opinion, Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, and Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch.

As a practical matter, more “reverse discrimination” lawsuits in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and DC Circuits may survive a motion to dismiss—or employers may elect not to move to dismiss if the complaint’s allegations satisfy a Title VII plaintiff’s prima facie burden.  That said, the opinion does not alter the liability framework—employers can still achieve summary judgment dismissals of Title VII employment discrimination lawsuits by demonstrating that the employment decision at issue was made for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 

*          *          *

In Ames, the plaintiff alleged that her employer discriminated against her because of her heterosexual orientation when she was denied a promotion that was given to a lesbian woman and then later demoted and her prior position filled by a gay man.  Slip Op. at 2.  Analyzing her claim under the long-standing McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework, derived from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), the District Court granted summary judgment for the employer, noting the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of employment discrimination because she had not presented evidence of “background circumstances” that suggested her employer was the “rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group.”  Slip Op. at 2.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed.