KMK Law Management Rights Blog

On Oct. 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services –a reverse discrimination case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the heightened “background circumstances” rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit for reverse discrimination cases is discriminatory and runs afoul of Title VII. The “background circumstances” rule is an additional requirement imposed by certain circuits for proving discrimination in cases involving members of majority groups – so-called reverse discrimination cases. A plaintiff typically satisfies the “background circumstances” by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023)

Mariam Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an administrator.  In April 2019, she applied and interviewed to be the Department’s Bureau Chief of Quality. The Department did not to hire her for the position. The Department hired Yolanda Frierson, a gay woman, as its Bureau Chief of Quality. Ames was subsequently demoted. A 25-year-old gay man, was hired in Ames’ previous position. Ames filed a claim alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex in violation of Title VII. She alleged discrimination on the basis of her membership in a majority group – heterosexuals.  

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Court held that Ames did not establish the “background circumstances” required to prove the prima facie case of reverse discrimination. Ames appealed the judgement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Court held that Ames failed to establish that a member of the minority group at issue –a gay person, made the decision not to hire her. Furthermore, the Court held she failed to present statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by her employer against members of the majority group. The Court held Ames was demoted by heterosexual managers, and Ames’ only evidence of a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals was her own demotion and the denial of the position. Thus, the evidence did not satisfy the prima facie case for reverse discrimination case.  

Ames appealed the Sixth Circuit’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear this case. Before the Supreme Court is whether requiring members of majority groups to satisfy the heightened “background circumstances” rule is itself discriminatory and a violation of Title VII. Currently, there is a split among circuits regarding the heighted background circumstances rule developed by the District of Columbia. The Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth circuits have adopted this rule, while the Third and Eleventh circuits have expressly rejected the rule. There is also a split among the lower courts over the elements of a prima facie case in reverse discrimination Title VII cases. The Supreme Court’s decision will be essential to resolve the divide among the circuits.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case is critical because of the recent surge in reverse discrimination cases and challenges against employers’ and higher education institutions’ DEI programs. Should the Supreme Court reverse the Sixth Circuit, the decision will greatly impact reverse discrimination suits against employers, lowering the bar for plaintiffs to file such actions. 

Should you have further questions, please contact a member of the KMK Law Labor and Employment Group.