U.S. Supreme Court Considers Reverse Discrimination Case

Jun 23, 2025

By: Kerri McGuire, Law Clerk

As the 2024-2025 school year comes to an end, school boards will be tasked with assessing and updating their policies and regulations to conform to recent Supreme Court decision like Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services. This case reminds school districts of the importance of implementing robust anti-discrimination practices. While DEI programs and initiatives remain encouraged by the Department of Education, districts must now consider the potential legal implications of this decision. School boards must continue to guarantee compliance with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and other anti-discrimination statutes.

This case involved Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who worked with the Ohio Department of Youth Services for fifteen years, starting as an executive secretary and eventually promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, Ames applied for a newly created management position, but the agency ultimately hired a member of the LGBTQ community to fill the role. A few days after her interview for the position, her supervisors removed her from her role as program administrator and demoted her to a secretarial role she held when she first joined the agency in 2004. The agency then hired another member of the LGBTQ community to fulfill her former role as program administrator. Ames subsequently filed suit under Title VII alleging employment discrimination based on her sexual orientation. 

In 2025, the Court agreed with Ames and held the McDonnell Douglas framework requiring plaintiffs of majority groups to satisfy the heightened evidentiary standard of “background circumstances” is inconsistent with Title VII and existing case law. The “background circumstances” rule is an unnecessary judicially created doctrine that distorts the underlying statutory text, requiring majority-group plaintiffs to demonstrate additional evidence the employer is inclined to discriminate against the majority rather than a prima facie case showing likely discrimination. The text of Title VII draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Title VII’s focuses on barring discrimination against any individual because of protected characteristics (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) rather than as a group.

This decision has several implications for New Jersey school districts:

1. Policy Review: Districts should assess and update their policies and regulations to ensure robust compliance regarding discrimination standards. This includes proactively documenting their compliance to avoid legal exposure.
2. Individualized Consideration: To reduce risk of all discrimination claims by focusing on bias reduction measures to objectively evaluate faculty, staff and student matters.
3. Heightened Litigation Risks: As a result of this decision districts might see an increase in litigation alleging “reverse discrimination challenges.” Historically, reverse discrimination suits were more difficult to prove, however, absent the heightened evidentiary standards these cases may become increasingly popular and more successful as a result.

Ultimately, the Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, reinforces equal protection from discrimination under Title VII for members of “majority groups.” However, school boards should ensure existing policies and regulations are in accordance with state and federal statutes aimed in barring discrimination towards individuals on account of a protected category.