On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the matter of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth and Services, 145 S.Ct. 1540 (2025), rejecting a heightened evidentiary requirement for plaintiffs in employment claims under Title VII if they belong to a  majority-group. In reversing the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that all employees must satisfy the same evidentiary burden in claims of discrimination pursuant to Title VII, and that no additional requirements may be imposed on majority group plaintiffs who allege so-called “reverse discrimination” claims.  Any other standard, wrote Justice Jackson in her opinion for the court, would be inconsistent with Title VII.

Background

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“ODYS”) discriminated against her based on sexual orientation under Title VII when it selected a lesbian woman to fill a role rather than her. Ms. Ames had sought the position as a promotion. Ms. Ames further claimed that ODYS subsequently demoted her and moved a gay man into her previous position.  Ms. Ames filed her Title VII claim against ODYS in court.

On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of ODYS applying the “background circumstances” standard to Ms. Ames’ sexual orientation claim since the court found Ms. Ames was a member of the “majority-group” of employees in the workplace as a heterosexual.   Prior to the Ames decision, some lower courts had required majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII cases to provide “extra” evidence of employer discrimination in order to establish a successful claim for discrimination.  These courts believed that “background circumstances” were required to “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”  In a case such as Ames, the “extra” evidence could include statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members in the majority group (heterosexuals) or evidence that gay managers made the employment decisions at issue.

In the lower court decision, the trial court found that Ms. Ames had failed to meet her burden of providing this “extra” evidence of discrimination and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Supreme Court Ruling

In reversing the lower court decisions, the Supreme Court rejected a heightened standard of proof for majority-group plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination cases. The Court noted that Title VII makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”   (42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(i)(emphasis added)).  The Court previously held that these protections against discrimination include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

The Court found there is no room in Title VII for two separate standards of proof.  The framework for evaluating all disparate treatment claims of discrimination in violation of Title VII is governed by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). This three-step framework requires that plaintiffs must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which is not an onerous burden.  Once the prima facie case is met, the burden shifts to the employer to present a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the action.  The burden then returns to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s reason for the action was pretext. The ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination is always on the plaintiff.

In reaching its conclusion in Ames, the Court expressly rejected the “background circumstances” rule to assess a claim by majority-group plaintiffs.  “Our case law … makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group… The ‘background circumstances’ rules flouts that basic principle.”

Key Take Aways

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ames is consistent with the guidance recently issued from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) which had similarly rejected the background circumstances rule in workplace discrimination.  Going forward, the Ames decision may lead to an increased number of Title VII claims by majority-group plaintiffs since courts will no longer require a heightened evidentiary burden on such plaintiffs. Employers may wish to review their policies and practices to ensure all employees are protected from discrimination.  Employers may also want to provide training for supervisors and HR personnel to ensure they are able to recognize and prevent all forms of discrimination in the workplace.