Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services affirms a principle long understood by Federal-sector EEO professionals: there is no such thing as “reverse” discrimination—there is only discrimination.

The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” requirement, which imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs pursuing Title VII claims. The Justices held that this rule is incompatible with the text of Title VII and existing Supreme Court precedent.

As those of us who process Federal-sector EEO complaints, we know that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s case law aligns with this holding. When investigating or adjudicating EEO complaints, all complainants—regardless of their protected class—carry the same evidentiary burden.

As the Court emphasized, “for most plaintiffs, the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework—stating a prima facie case of discrimination—is ‘not onerous.’” (Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253.) The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, by contrast, imposed an additional threshold burden solely on majority-group plaintiffs. But Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision does not draw distinctions between majority and minority group members. It protects the rights of individuals, prohibiting discrimination against “any individual” on the basis of protected characteristics. 

Read the full decision here.