On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that “majority group” plaintiffs — such as White, male, or heterosexual employees — are entitled to bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act without facing additional legal hurdles.
The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services underscores that all employees, regardless of demographic background, are equally protected under the law.
What the Supreme Court Ruled
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court reversed a Sixth Circuit decision that had imposed a heightened burden — known as the “background circumstances” test — on plaintiffs from majority groups alleging discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit, along with several other federal circuits, had previously required majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional evidence that an employer was inclined to discriminate “against the majority” — a requirement not imposed on minority-group plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected this disparity, holding that:
“Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs… Discriminatory preferences for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.”
This ruling eliminates a judicial double standard that existed in several U.S. federal circuits and clarifies that there is no such thing as “reverse discrimination” under Title VII — there is only discrimination.
Why This Matters
The decision in Ames is likely to result in increased claims brought by members of traditionally “majority” groups who allege they were treated unfairly on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Importantly, it also raises the bar for how organizations must defend employment decisions — especially regarding compensation.
Now more than ever, employers must demonstrate that their decisions are based on objective, job-related, and neutral criteria.
What Employers Should Do Next
To ensure your pay decisions are compliant, Trusaic recommends the following key practices:
1. Use a Neutral-Based Pay Equity Analysis
Traditional pay equity audits often compare employee earnings against a predefined reference group — typically White males. However, this approach may fail to detect disparities affecting other demographic groups.
Instead, a neutral analysis method ensures that disparities are identified without assumptions about which group is disadvantaged. Our pay equity software solution PayParity® automatically determines the highest-paid demographic group within each pay analysis category, ensuring an objective and compliant evaluation.
By eliminating bias in the selection of reference groups, employers can accurately identify and address pay disparities across all protected classes — reducing risks of both systemic discrimination and potential reverse discrimination claims.
2. Ensure Hiring and Pay Decisions Are Free from Bias
Employers must take steps to remove bias from compensation decisions, particularly at the point of hire. Some common pitfalls to avoid include:
- Using gender or race as a factor in determining salary offers.
- Adjusting pay based on a candidate’s prior salary history (which is prohibited in many states).
- Failing to conduct pay equity reviews before setting salary bands.
To support compliant hiring practices, Trusaic’s Salary Range Finder® ensures that compensation decisions are based solely on job-related criteria — without incorporating gender, race, or other protected characteristics. This approach not only ensures compliance but also promotes competitive pay structures that align with industry benchmarks.
A few additional items worth evaluating:
- Review DEI and HR policies. Ensure they don’t inadvertently favor or exclude any group. While equity and inclusion are worthy goals, they cannot be pursued in ways that result in unlawful disparate treatment of employees.
- Audit training programs. Make sure workplace training on discrimination, bias, and harassment is evenhanded. It should communicate that all protected characteristics under Title VII are equally protected — including those historically seen as majority groups.
- Evaluate legal risk from all angles. Decisions around hiring, promotions, reductions in force, and compensation should not assume lower risk based on an employee’s group status. Everyone is protected under Title VII
How Trusaic Helps
Trusaic’s PayParity® software helps organizations identify and resolve pay inequities using advanced statistical methods and intersectional analysis. Powered by Trusaic AI™, it evaluates compensation decisions across all protected groups and ensures they are rooted in valid, neutral WIFs.
For organizations concerned about remediation, R.O.S.A.™ (Remediation Optimization Spend Agent) provides an industry-first framework that prioritizes the most effective remediation strategies with measurable return on investment — helping you take action without overspending or missing your legal mark.
Together, PayParity and R.O.S.A. equip employers with the data, rigor, and transparency needed to navigate today’s evolving legal landscape and ensure compensation decisions are both equitable and legally sound.
As legal risks expand across all employee demographics, employers must rise to the challenge with unbiased, data-driven practices.
By leveraging solutions like PayParity and R.O.S.A., organizations can stay ahead of legal developments, protect their workforce, and build a truly equitable compensation