On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting the "background circumstances" rule that would require majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII discrimination cases. The decision vacated and remanded the case for further consideration by the Sixth Circuit. In so doing, the Court held that all plaintiffs – whether minority or majority employees – bringing discrimination cases under Title VII are subject to the same evidentiary standards under the McDonnell Douglas framework for evaluating disparate-treatment claims.
In this case, Plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had
been employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004.
She applied for a management position but was passed over in favor
of another candidate – a lesbian woman – and later
demoted from her role and replaced by a gay man. She sued under
Title VII, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. The
District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, and the
Sixth Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the Sixth
Circuit analyzed Ames's claims under the familiar McDonnell
Douglas framework and found that Ames had failed to meet her
prima facie burden because she had not shown "background
circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is the
unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." The
Sixth Circuit reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required
to make this showing "in addition to the usual ones for
establishing a prima facie case." Notably, Judge Kethledge
concurred in the decision but wrote separately to express his
disagreement with the "background circumstances" rule. In
his view, the requirement was not only unworkable—in that it
required an assessment of evidence presented by different
plaintiffs under different standards—but also diverged
substantially from Title VII's text.
The Supreme Court's opinion, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown
Jackson, makes clear that Title VII does not impose a heightened
standard on majority-group plaintiffs. The Court rejected the
"background circumstances" rule as inconsistent with
Title VII's text and precedent, and emphasized the need for
equal application of Title VII to all individuals, regardless of
majority or minority status, reasoning that the text of Title VII
does not distinguish between majority and minority
plaintiffs.
Justice Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice
Gorsuch, which critiqued "judge-made" doctrines,
including both the "background circumstances" rule and
the McDonnell Douglas framework itself. He wrote,
"the McDonnell Douglas framework lacks any basis in
the text of Title VII and has proved difficult for courts to apply.
In a case where the parties ask us to do so, I would be willing to
consider whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is a
workable and useful evidentiary tool."
This decision resolves a circuit split on this issue and may
encourage "majority group" litigants to more boldly
pursue discrimination claims, particularly against the backdrop of
the Trump administration's efforts to move employers away from
diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
