“Reverse Discrimination” Uses Regular Discrimination Standard

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers with 15+ Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 5, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456
Quick Look

  • Title VII claimants are subject to the same standard of proof without regard to majority or minority-group status.
  • The “background circumstances” standard creates a higher burden of proof for majority-group claimants that is inconsistent with the requirements of Title VII and therefore cannot be used.

Discussion

In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Svcs., the U.S. Supreme Court said that the standard of proof for discrimination claims under Title VII does not distinguish between minority-group and majority-group (“reverse”) discrimination. There was a split among the Circuit Courts on whether a heightened standard of proof applied to “reverse” discrimination cases that prompted the Supreme Court to review the case.

Here, a heterosexual woman was denied an internal role in favor of a lesbian woman and was subsequently demoted with a homosexual man promoted in her place. She then filed suit claiming sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. Typically, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is used to analyze disparate treatment claims, where the employee must first prove a discriminatory motive. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals added to that first analysis a requirement that the employee also prove “‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’” The court explained that employees can typically satisfy this heightened burden by presenting “evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people) made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination . . . against members of the majority group.”

Upon review, the Supreme Court said the “background circumstances” requirement was an additional burden that was not required by Title VII and there was no basis to give a higher burden to majority-group claimants than to minority-group claimants. Specifically, Title VII bars discrimination against “any individual” on the basis of protected characteristics, without further distinction. Under the first step of McDonnell Douglas, an employee may satisfy proof of discriminatory motive simply by presenting evidence “that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.”

While this ruling makes it somewhat easier for majority-group employees to prove Title VII disparate treatment claims in those Circuit Courts who had used a heightened standard, it ultimately subjects all employee plaintiffs to the same scrutiny and standard of proof.

Action Items

  1. Review Title VII disparate treatment claims with legal counsel to determine appropriate defense strategies.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase