A Court Rules That a Majority Group Has Same Rights to Sue as Minority Groups

The normal issue in a disparate treatment discrimination case is whether “the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.”  Usually, the plaintiff in these cases is some type of “minority,” but many courts began to apply the concept that when members of a majority group sue, they must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” 

This year the appropriateness of this standard came before the Supreme Court in the case of a “straight” person who was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted over certain persons who were “gay.”  The plaintiff sued contending she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation of being straight.  Ames v. Ohio Dept. Of Youth Services, No. 23-1039 (June 5, 2025).  

The Supreme Court rejected the concept that the standards of proving discrimination vary depending on whether one is a member of a “majority” or a “minority” group.  The Court unanimously ruled 9-0 on this issue.  The Court stated that, “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.  Further, the discrimination test applied to ‘any individual.’  By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ - without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

Editor’s Note: While it was not mentioned in the Court’s ruling, this writer notes some similarities in its rationale to DEI issues, compared to the High Court’s previous ruling in the Harvard case.  These two cases read together emphasize that an individual is protected against discrimination the same way whether they are a minority or not. 

This article is part of our July 2025 Newsletter. 

View the newsletter online

Download the newsletter as a PDF