• The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that discrimination laws apply equally to all, including majority group members.
• Marlean Ames claimed she was denied a promotion and demoted because of her heterosexuality.
• The ruling removes the "background circumstances" requirement for majority group plaintiffs.
• The decision revives Ames' case against the Ohio Department of Youth Services.
• This ruling could lead to an increase in workplace lawsuits challenging diversity and inclusion practices.

The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled on June 5, 2025, that discrimination laws protect all employees equally, with no higher burden for members of majority groups when claiming workplace discrimination. The ruling centers on the case of Marlean Ames, who alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her by denying her a promotion in favor of gay employees due to her being straight, challenging the previous notion that majority group members must demonstrate additional evidence of discrimination to proceed with their claims, a view deemed outdated by the justices according to CBS News and Los Angeles Times.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, determined that the standard for proving workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not vary based on the plaintiff's majority or minority status. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson articulated that Congress intended for Title VII to apply uniformly to all individuals, stating that there are no legal distinctions between majority and minority group plaintiffs. This ruling effectively eliminates the so-called "background circumstances" requirement, which some courts imposed on majority group claimants, according to The New York Times, HuffPost, and Channel News Asia.

The case was first dismissed by lower courts, which ruled that Ames needed to show a pattern of discrimination by her employers, who were predominantly gay, and deemed that she did not meet the original burden of proof required by the sixth circuit. However, Ames maintained that her employer's preference for LGBTQ candidates unjustly affected her career progression, which the Supreme Court has now decided to reevaluate, potentially reshaping how future discrimination lawsuits are handled, as indicated by Reuters, ABC News, and The New York Times.

This unanimous decision indicates a broader judicial trend favoring fewer restrictions on claims of "reverse discrimination," potentially aligning with conservative efforts to challenge existing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives throughout the workforce, as noted by Al Jazeera and India Times.