Reverse Discrimination Claims Are Alive and Well – What Florida Employers Should Know
Reverse Discrimination Claims Are Alive and Well — What Florida Employers Should Know
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, clarifying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all employees equally, without imposing heightened evidentiary burdens based on majority or minority status. The Court rejected a judicial rule used in some circuits that required majority-group plaintiffs (such as White, male, or heterosexual employees) to meet an additional “background circumstances” hurdle when bringing Title VII claims. In other words, this Opinion paves the way for a significant increase in reverse discrimination claims (i.e., discrimination because an employee is white or heterosexual).
While the ruling directly impacts jurisdictions that previously imposed this requirement, Florida law already followed the standard that the Supreme Court just adopted. The Eleventh Circuit[1] expressly rejected the “background circumstances” requirement more than a decade ago, holding that it is not appropriate to impose a different standard on majority-group plaintiffs. In Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2011), the court explained that the Eleventh Circuit does not require majority-member plaintiffs to establish that “background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
The upshot: this decision does not substantively change the legal standard in Florida.
But employers in Florida should still take note. The opinion is generating significant national attention and is likely to spur a significant increase in reverse discrimination claims in Florida.
Background of the Case
In Ames, the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had been employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a newly created management position but was passed over in favor of a lesbian candidate. Shortly after that decision, Ames was demoted from her prior program administrator role—resulting in a significant pay cut—and a gay man was hired to fill her former position. Ames subsequently filed suit under Title VII, alleging that her demotion and the promotion decision were motivated by unlawful discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
Both the District Court and the Sixth Circuit dismissed her claim under a heightened “background circumstances” requirement that had been applied in several federal circuits. The Sixth Circuit held that Ames failed to meet this extra burden and affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against “any individual” and does not allow courts to impose a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that Congress “left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone” and that such an approach “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or our longstanding precedents.” The Court vacated the lower court ruling and remanded for further proceedings under the correct, uniform standard.
Why This Matters for Florida Employers
Although the Eleventh Circuit had already aligned with the Supreme Court’s view, Florida employers should expect to see a notable uptick in majority-group discrimination claims, for several reasons:
- Increased Publicity and Plaintiff Awareness
- The Ames decision is already generating widespread headlines. Even though the Eleventh Circuit already rejected the “background circumstances” requirement, many potential plaintiffs, prompted by national media coverage and plaintiff-side law firm marketing, may now view reverse discrimination claims as more viable and more socially or legally validated.
- Scrutiny of DEI and Related Programs
- The decision comes at a time of growing legal and political scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, particularly in Florida. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas cautioned that some employers’ DEI practices may stray into prohibited territory under Title VII. Florida employers should be particularly cautious given Florida’s active legal and political environment surrounding DEI. Potential plaintiffs may use DEI programs as evidence that your company is prejudiced against “majority-group” employees.
- Risk of Increased Litigation
- Even though the Eleventh Circuit’s standard remains unchanged, the volume of reverse discrimination claims is likely to rise in Florida, as plaintiffs and attorneys capitalize on the publicity surrounding Ames. Employers should expect more challenges to promotions, hiring, compensation, and discipline decisions brought by majority-group employees.
Conclusion
For Florida employers, Ames is not a sea change in the law, as our Eleventh Circuit already rejected the heightened “background circumstances” test in Smith v. Lockheed-Martin. But the case is having a national ripple effect that will likely encourage more reverse discrimination litigation here as well.
We recommend that Florida employers:
- Review hiring, promotion, and compensation processes to ensure consistent and neutral application of criteria;
- Audit DEI programs to ensure they comply with Title VII and do not provide ammo for disgruntled employees to bring reverse discrimination claims;
- Update manager and HR training to reinforce Title VII compliance as it applies to all employees;
- Monitor legal trends, as plaintiffs may bring novel or more aggressive majority-group discrimination claims in this evolving environment.
If you would like assistance evaluating your policies or preparing your organization in light of the Ames decision, please contact our labor & employment team.
[1] The 11th Circuit is the federal court of appeals that covers Florida, among other states.
