New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, clarifying the legal standards that apply in workplace “reverse discrimination” cases. The Court held that plaintif
fs are not subject to a heightened burden when alleging discrimination simply because they are part of a majority group. This decision is a significant victory for workers of all backgrounds and reinforces that Title VII protects everyone equally from discriminatory employment practices.
The Facts of the Case
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a newly created management position within the agency. The role was ultimately given to a lesbian colleague. Soon after, the employer demoted Ms. Ames from her role as a program administrator to an executive secretary—a position she had held 15 years earlier. This demotion came with a significant salary reduction. Her former role was filled by a gay male employee.
Ms. Ames believed she had been discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. She filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that both the denial of her promotion and the subsequent demotion were motivated by unlawful bias.
The Applicable Law
Title VII is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 2020, the United States Supreme Court concluded that Title VII’s protection includes sexual orientation.
When an employee claims discrimination without direct evidence, courts typically apply a burden-shifting framework. In these situations, an employee must first present a prima facie case of discrimination, which usually involves showing 1) they belong to a protected category, 2) they were qualified for the job, 3) they suffered an adverse employment action, and 4) someone outside the protected category was treated more favorably.
Once the employee makes a prima facie case, the employer must provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If it does so, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.
However, for many years, some courts—including the lower court that oversaw Ms. Ames’s case—added an extra step for plaintiffs who belong to a majority group. These courts required such plaintiffs to show circumstances suggesting that the employer is the rare kind that discriminates against majority-group members. This added requirement was not imposed on plaintiffs from minority groups.
The Supreme Court’s Holding
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher burden. The Court explained that Title VII’s plain language protects “any individual” from discrimination and does not differentiate between majority and minority groups. According to the Court, the requirement of additional evidence in cases involving discrimination against a majority group unfairly tilted the playing field and introduced a barrier that is not supported by the law.
The Court emphasized that discrimination is unlawful regardless of whom it targets. Employers cannot use protected characteristics—such as sexual orientation—as a factor in employment decisions. The question is not whether the plaintiff is part of a group that is often discriminated against, but whether the plaintiff experienced discrimination based on a protected trait.
The decision reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings. Going forward, all employees bringing Title VII claims must be treated equally under the law, without extra hurdles based on group identity.
What This Means for New Jersey Employees
Historically, New Jersey courts have followed federal cases that applied a heightened burden in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). In those cases, employees who are part of a majority group—such as white employees or heterosexual employees—have been required to present additional evidence to support their discrimination claims. This has included showing the employer is inclined to discriminate against majority-group members, creating a steeper hurdle to access the protections of the LAD.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ames sends a clear message: Title VII protects all employees equally, regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority. Ames is likely to prompt a shift in how New Jersey courts evaluate these types of cases, eliminating the heightened requirement and ensuring that all employees can assert their rights under anti-discrimination laws on equal footing.
Speak with a Bergen County Employment Lawyer Today
If you believe you have been treated unfairly at work due to discrimination, it is important to act quickly. The employment attorneys at Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. have decades of experience representing workers in New Jersey who have faced unlawful treatment on the job. We will take the time to understand your story, explain your rights, and help you decide the best course of action. To schedule a confidential consultation, please call us at (201) 777-2250 or contact us online.