In a unanimous decision issued June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees who allege discrimination, including so-called “reverse discrimination,” are entitled to equal treatment under federal law. The Court reversed a Sixth Circuit ruling that had imposed a heightened pleading standard on a heterosexual woman claiming sex-based discrimination in a state agency’s promotion and demotion decisions. 

The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation when it denied her a promotion and later demoted her. Ames, who is heterosexual, was demoted and passed over for a promotion that was instead given to a lesbian colleague. A gay man was later appointed to her former role. The Sixth Circuit had dismissed her claim on the ground that majority-group plaintiffs must show “background circumstances” suggesting the employer is one that discriminates against the majority—an extra hurdle not required of minority plaintiffs. 

Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected this reasoning, explaining that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals from intentional discrimination, regardless of majority or minority status. At the early stage of a discrimination case, plaintiffs need only show they were qualified, rejected, and that the surrounding circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination. 

The Court reaffirmed the standard framework used in employment discrimination cases—known as the McDonnell Douglas test—where plaintiffs must first make a basic showing of discrimination, after which the burden shifts to the employer to give a legitimate reason, and then back to the plaintiff to prove pretext. However, the Court emphasized that this test applies equally to all individuals and cannot be modified based on the plaintiff’s group status. 

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, questioned the legitimacy of the McDonnell Douglas framework altogether, calling it textually unsupported and overly complex. Though the majority did not address that issue, Thomas signaled openness to revisiting the framework in a future case. 

What does it mean

The decision confirms that anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees. Employers should apply consistent, nondiscriminatory criteria to employment decisions and be prepared to defend them regardless of the identity of the affected employee. Courts may no longer apply heightened pleading standards solely because the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.