Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Standard For Majority-Group Plaintiffs In Title VII Disparate Treatment Claims

• The Supreme Court held that Title VII does not permit courts to impose a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs alleging disparate treatment.
• Some lower courts have required plaintiffs from majority groups to demonstrate "background circumstances," meaning they must prove that the defendant is an "unusual" one who discriminates against the majority.
• The Court clarified that Title VII's protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of group membership, and that the prima facie standard for discrimination claims is the same for all plaintiffs.
• The decision will likely lead to increased lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs against private employers, including those challenging DEI programs as unlawful discrimination under Title VII.

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that courts may not require majority-group plaintiffs to satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden—specifically, a "background circumstances" requirement—when bringing disparate treatment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rather, the Supreme Court confirmed that all plaintiffs, regardless of group membership, are subject to the same evidentiary standard at the initial stage of a Title VII disparate treatment claim.

The Ames case arose from a claim by a heterosexual woman who alleged that she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted by her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, because of her sexual orientation. The lower courts, applying Sixth Circuit precedent, required the plaintiff to demonstrate "background circumstances" suggesting that her case was an unusual one of an employer discriminating against a majority-group member. The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff had not met this heightened burden.

Vacating the Sixth Circuit's judgment and remanding for further proceedings, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the "background circumstances" requirement, holding that it is inconsistent with both the text of Title VII and the Court's precedents. Title VII's disparate-treatment provision prohibits employers from discriminating against "any individual" on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Court emphasized that the statute's protections are individual in nature, and thus do not vary based on whether a plaintiff is a member of a majority or minority group.

Further, the Court reaffirmed that the prima facie burden at the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework is "not onerous" and requires only that a plaintiff show they were qualified for a position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination. Where the Court's precedents in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and McDonald v. Sante Fe Trail Transportation Co. made clear that Title VII prohibits discriminatory preferences for any individual regardless of their membership in a majority or minority group, the Court held that the "background circumstances" requirement improperly imposes a more demanding standard on certain plaintiffs based solely on their group status and runs contrary to the principle that Title VII protects all individuals equally.

Making clear that majority-group plaintiffs do not have a heightened evidentiary burden in bringing employment discrimination claims under federal law, the Ames decision is expected to lead to an increase the number of claims asserted by these plaintiffs nationwide. In particular, the Ames decision will be cited by majority-group plaintiffs seeking to challenge the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives of private employers. As such, employers should continue to assess whether their employment actions are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory factors and that their programs and policies, including their DEI programs, comply with Title VII.