In a unanimous decision that will shape the future of employment law and civil rights, the United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that claims of employment discrimination should be adjudicated according to a consistent legal standard—regardless of the claimant’s race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Writing for the Court, Justice Brown made clear that the law does not—and should not—impose a higher burden of proof on members of majority groups alleging discrimination. However, equally important, the Court did not validate the long-discredited notion of “reverse discrimination.”
As a trial and appellate litigator and a tenured professor of law and education, I have long rejected the “reverse discrimination” theory. That theory wrongly assumes that civil rights laws were designed only to benefit historically marginalized groups, and that when those same laws are applied universally, they somehow operate unfairly.
In fact, civil rights laws are rooted in principles of fairness, equity, and constitutional fidelity. They protect all people against unlawful discrimination, and they do so without negating the historical and structural contexts that have long disadvantaged people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others.
The facts of the Ames case were straightforward. Marlean Ames, a straight white woman, alleged that she was passed over for promotion in favor of LGBTQ colleagues whom, she claimed, were given preferential treatment by her employer. While the lower courts dismissed her claim—somewhat reflexively—the Supreme Court reminded the nation that all claims of workplace discrimination deserve careful, consistent analysis under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But the brilliance of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinion lies not merely in its legal reasoning. It lies in its ability to dismantle the dangerous narrative that our country’s efforts to diversify workplaces, universities, and leadership pipelines somehow amount to discrimination in reverse. As the Court affirmed, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives do not immunize employers from valid discrimination claims, but neither do they constitute discrimination just because someone from a majority group does not get the promotion or recognition they believe they deserve.
The Ames decision wisely avoids elevating a single individual’s grievance into a political weapon against DEI programs. It makes room for legitimate legal claims while reinforcing the principle that equity is not a zero-sum game. Fairness for one does not come at the expense of fairness for another—especially when evaluated under a uniform legal standard.
As someone who has spent his career advocating for civil rights, teaching future lawyers, and litigating employment and education cases, I applaud the Court’s decision. Justice Brown’s opinion respects the integrity of our civil rights framework while firmly rejecting the politicization of “reverse discrimination.” In doing so, the Court has helped ensure that the arc of justice continues to bend toward inclusion, not retraction.
Let this be a reminder: equality under the law means just that—for everyone, everywhere, without dilution or distortion.
About Gregory J. Vincent, Ed.D., J.D.
Dr. Gregory J. Vincent is CEO of Vincent Strategies and has served for over three decades as an award-winning education and nonprofit CEO, board chair, executive officer, tenured professor of education and law, and a trial and appellate litigator. He has successfully argued precedent-setting cases before the Ohio Supreme Court, managed budgets of up to $100 million for several national higher educational institutions, and raised over $50 million in external funding.