Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
June 24, 2025
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), holding that majority-group plaintiffs are not required to meet a higher evidentiary standard (as opposed to minority-group plaintiffs) in discrimination cases.
The Case
The Ohio Department of Youth Services hired Ames, a heterosexual woman, in 2004 and promoted her in 2014. In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, who is gay. In 2019, Ames applied for a promotion but was not selected. Later in 2019, Ames was demoted and suffered a significant pay cut. The Department promoted a gay man to the position that Ames had held. Thereafter, a gay woman was chosen for a high-level position with the Department.
Ames filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sued the Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
The trial court dismissed Ames’s claims before trial, holding that she lacked evidence of enhanced “background circumstances” necessary to establish her prima facie case (i.e., a rebuttable presumption) for sexual orientation discrimination and that she lacked evidence of pretext on her sex discrimination claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit had previously required that members of a majority group, in addition to proving the prima facie elements of a cause of action, also must show “background circumstances” to support the argument that the defendant is an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,” meaning here that the Department was discriminating against heterosexuals in favor of gay employees.
Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, which considered exactly that limited question: To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, does a plaintiff who belongs to a majority group have to demonstrate background circumstances suggesting that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority?[1]
SCOTUS’s Decision
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, answering “No” to the above question. Employers violate Title VII when they discriminate against any person on the basis of a protected characteristic, like sex. The statute does not impose a higher evidentiary burden on plaintiffs who belong to majority groups.
In so holding, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule. The Supreme Court looked to its prior decisions, noting that Title VII bars discrimination against any group and that minority and majority plaintiffs must be treated alike.
In addition to lacking support in the language of Title VII, the Supreme Court held that the “background circumstances” rule undermines the flexible evidentiary standard established in McDonnell Douglas. The McDonnell Douglas framework is a burden-shifting framework primarily used when only circumstantial evidence of discrimination exists. It requires the plaintiff to show that they are a member of a protected class, qualified for the job, experienced an adverse employment action, and that similarly situated individuals outside the protected class were treated more favorably. If the plaintiff establishes these points, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Finally, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s reason is a pretext for discrimination.
The Supreme Court held that this framework was not meant to be applied mechanically. The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule wrongly required majority-group plaintiffs to present specific types of evidence, like statistical data or information about the decision-maker’s identity, to proceed on their claims.
Why the Case Is Important
With the new Presidential administration, corporate DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives have come into keen focus. Though Ames did not directly concern such initiatives, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, noted that “Initiatives of this kind (diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and affirmative action plans) have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.”
In light of this decision, employers may see an increase in claims by majority-group plaintiffs, including claims that challenge DEI initiatives.
This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
[1] This “background circumstances” rule led to a Circuit split, with the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits applying the rule, while the remaining Circuits not requiring a heightened standard.
