The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could change how reverse discrimination claims are handled. The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centers on whether employees from majority groups must meet stricter standards than minority group members when proving discrimination claims.

The case involves Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who alleges she was demoted and denied promotion in favor of LGBTQ+ employees at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Lower courts dismissed her case because she failed to meet the “background circumstances” rule – a legal standard that requires majority group members to provide additional evidence of discrimination.

‘Background circumstances’

The background circumstances rule requires that the plaintiff must show that the defendant is the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” This means that the plaintiff must present evidence that suggests that the employer has a history or pattern of discriminating against a majority group.

Under existing frameworks in some jurisdictions, minority group members need only show they were qualified for a position and treated differently than those outside their protected class.

Case background

The discrimination claim stemmed from a series of employment decisions at the Ohio Department of Youth Services involving Ames, a heterosexual woman who had served the department since 2004. Ames was promoted to Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2014.

In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who was gay. In a performance review dated December 2018, Trim indicated Ames mostly met expectations, although she had an “opportunity to improve” in three areas.

In April 2019, Ames applied and interviewed for a promotion to Bureau Chief of Quality but was not selected for the job. According to court records, in conversation after the interview, Trim congratulated Ames on 30 years of public service but also suggested Ames retire.

Four days later, in May 2019, Ames was terminated from her job as PREA Administrator and offered her previous role, resulting in a pay cut of more than $18 per hour. Shortly thereafter, the department hired a 25-year-old gay man for the position of PREA Administrator, and in December 2019, the department hired a gay woman for the Bureau Chief of Quality role. Ames later filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A district court granted summary judgement to the Department and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, noting the background circumstances rule was applied correctly. However, the court’s chief judge wrote that Ames would have met the prima-facie requirements for a traditional discrimination claim and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would take up the issue.

Resolving a split

The decision could rectify a split among federal courts regarding discrimination standards. Four circuit courts have adopted the background circumstances rule, two circuits have rejected it, and five circuits treat discrimination claims the same regardless of whether they came from a plaintiff of a majority or minority group.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in early 2025. Some legal analysts suggest the court is likely to overrule the “background circumstances” rule, upending the prevailing legal standard in many states.