The Supreme Court Rules 9–0 That Discrimination Is Discrimination
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
In Ames v. Department of Ohio Youth Services, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous and unequivocal ruling: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits all discrimination—period.[1] Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson affirmed that reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and that courts cannot impose heightened burdens of proof simply because the plaintiff belongs to a majority group.
Background and Procedural History
Marlean Ames served as a program administrator at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She alleged that she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and later demoted to a secretarial role, replaced by a gay man.[2] Ames brought a Title VII claim, asserting that she was subject to unlawful discrimination based on her sexual orientation (heterosexual).[3]
The district court dismissed the case, holding that Ames failed to present “background circumstances” suggesting the agency was the rare employer that discriminates against majority-group members.[4] The Sixth Circuit affirmed, requiring Ames to produce statistical or circumstantial evidence of a broader pattern of discrimination against whites—an evidentiary burden that minority plaintiffs are not required to meet.[5]
The Supreme Court’s Rejection of Majority-Only Burdens
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed. Justice Jackson’s opinion emphasized that Title VII protects individuals, not groups, and draws no distinction between majority and minority plaintiffs. Quoting the statute, she noted it is unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual…because of such individual’s race.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1) (emphasis added).[6]
The Court soundly rejected the judicially created “background circumstances” rule, declaring that it imposed a discriminatory double standard.[7] As Justice Jackson stated, “[o]ur case law…makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”[8]
To require members of majority groups—and only members of majority groups—to provide additional statistical or demographic proof to bring a discrimination claim “flouts this principle” and, in effect, becomes discrimination itself.[9]
This reasoning echoed the Court’s recent holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, which affirmed that Title VII’s protection applies to any individual discriminated against because of a protected trait—whether race, sex, or national origin.[10]
Equality Requires Equal Rules
The Court’s decision reaffirms a foundational principle of civil rights law: equality under the law means uniform standards for all individuals. In recent years, some hiring and promotion policies—particularly in academia and government—have appeared to disadvantage majority group members under the guise of equity or diversity initiatives. While those aims may be well-intentioned, when protected traits like race or sexual orientation become deciding factors in employment decisions, the result is still unlawful discrimination.
As the Court recognized, equality cannot exist where one group is asked to carry a heavier evidentiary burden to prove mistreatment. Title VII prohibits all race-based employment decisions—regardless of the race of the person targeted. To allow otherwise would be to erode the very fairness the statute was designed to ensure.
A Consistent and Principled Approach
Justice Jackson’s opinion is not only doctrinally sound—it is morally grounded. Equal justice requires a consistent legal standard, not one that shifts depending on the plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The law should reflect the dignity of all persons and reject discriminatory treatment, no matter who the victim is.
As Chief Justice Roberts famously wrote in Parents Involved, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”[11] The Court’s unanimous decision in Ames brings us one step closer to that ideal.
If we are serious about eradicating discrimination, we must be willing to condemn it in every form—without exception or qualification. The Constitution and civil rights laws demand no less.
[1] Ames v. Department of Ohio Youth Services, available at: 23-1039 Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. (06/05/2025).
[2] See id.
[3] See id.
[4] Id.
[5] See id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[11] 551 U.S. 701 (2007).