A longtime CFO thought his company’s succession plan was rigged against him in favor of a female candidate for CEO. He sued, claiming sex discrimination and retaliation. Thanks to recent Supreme Court guidance, men bringing reverse discrimination claims no longer face extra procedural hurdles. That makes these cases easier to start. But as this Sixth Circuit opinion shows, they are still hard to finish without evidence that sex was the real reason for the decision.
TL;DR: The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a male CFO who claimed he was fired and then passed over so a woman could become CEO. Under older precedent, reverse discrimination claims like his often failed at the starting line. Now, men and women are judged under the same Title VII standard. But the CFO still lost because the employer had documented, neutral reasons for its decisions.
From CFO to Plaintiff: The Succession Plan Showdown
-
The CFO had served for decades and once admitted he was “probably not the best choice” for CEO, even recommending the eventual successor, a clinician.
-
The outgoing CEO favored a clinician over a financial person and recommended her.
-
Days after the CFO announced his own candidacy, the CEO fired him, citing “self-serving actions,” risk of “creating dissension,” and a perceived broken assurance not to disrupt succession.
-
After the CFO’s lawyer alleged sex discrimination, the board stuck with its succession plan, interviewed the only remaining internal candidate, and hired her.
Easier to Start: The Burden Has Changed
For years, male plaintiffs bringing sex discrimination claims faced a higher bar at the first step. Courts often required them to show “background circumstances” suggesting their employer was the unusual one that discriminates against men. That meant many reverse discrimination cases never got off the ground.
The Supreme Court recently scrapped that extra hurdle. Now, the prima facie case is the same for everyone. To open the door, a plaintiff needs to show only what any Title VII plaintiff must: membership in a protected class, qualifications, an adverse action, and that someone outside the class was treated better. That change makes reverse discrimination claims easier to start because they cannot be dismissed early for lack of “background circumstances.”
Hard to Finish: Proof Still Matters
Once a claim gets past the starting line, the employer can still defend itself by offering a neutral explanation for the decision. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that reason is a cover for discrimination.
Here, the employer documented that the CFO was fired for breaking assurances and creating division, not because of his sex. The outgoing CEO had once preferred a male successor, undercutting the theory that he was determined to install a woman. The board followed a succession plan that gave priority to clinicians, and the only internal candidate left was the woman the CFO himself had once recommended.
With that record, the court found no evidence of pretext. The claim may have been easier to start under the law, but without proof, it was still impossible to finish.
What Employers Should Learn From This Loss
-
Reverse discrimination claims now start on equal footing. Courts will not toss them just because the plaintiff is male.
-
Proof still wins. Without evidence that sex drove the decision, these cases collapse.
-
Stick to the plan. A documented succession process gave the board a strong defense.
Final Word
Tell it like it is. If you are going to terminate someone, tell them why. Skip the sugarcoated lines that sound safe in the moment but look evasive in litigation.
🚫 “It’s just not working out.”
✅ Better: “We are ending your employment because your recent actions created dissension within the leadership team and violated the commitments you made about the succession process.”
🚫 “We’re going in a different direction.”
✅ Better: “We have decided to move forward with a successor who has clinical credentials, in line with our succession plan that prioritizes internal clinician candidates.”
In this case, the termination letter spelled out the specific reasons for the decision — concerns about “self-serving actions” and disruption to leadership. Because those reasons matched the contemporaneous notes, the court accepted them as the true basis for the termination.