The Bottom Line
- The Supreme Court ruled that all employees, regardless of majority or minority status, face the same evidentiary standard in Title VII discrimination claims — no additional proof is required for majority-group plaintiffs.
- Employers should prepare for a possible rise in discrimination lawsuits from majority-group employees.
- Hiring, promotion, and workplace policies must be applied consistently and fairly, without assumptions tied to an employee's protected class status.
In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the evidentiary standard for a Title VII claim is the same for all employees, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group.
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Court vacated a Sixth Circuit decision that enforced a heightened evidentiary burden on a heterosexual plaintiff pursuing a sex-based discrimination claim. The Court held that requiring a majority-group plaintiff to show "background circumstances" to prove that an employer discriminates against members of a majority group improperly holds these plaintiffs to a higher evidentiary standard.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Anticipate a Potential Rise in Discrimination Claims: Employers should be aware that the decision lowers the bar for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims, particularly in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, which have adhered to the now-rejected "background circumstances" pleading standard.
- Evaluate Internal Compliance: Employers should ensure that hiring initiatives, internal policies, and training programs are applied uniformly and free of assumptions about protected class status.
Case Overview
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was passed over for a promotion in favor of another candidate, a lesbian woman, and was subsequently demoted and replaced by a gay male colleague. Ames filed suit against the agency, alleging that the decisions were motivated by discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
The district court dismissed her claims at summary judgment, applying a "background circumstances" requirement that majority-group plaintiffs must meet in addition to the typical prima facie elements under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision, holding that Ames had not shown "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Such background evidence may include statistical information or proof about the relevant decisionmaker's protected traits.
The Court's Holding
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Jackson rejected the Sixth Circuit's approach, finding that it improperly imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs. The Court emphasized:
- Title VII applies equally to "any individual," regardless of majority or minority status; and
- The first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework — establishing a prima facie case — is meant to be a low threshold and not an inflexible rule.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred. While joining the majority's opinion, they also critiqued the broader McDonnell Douglas framework as a judge-made doctrine lacking any basis in the text of Title VII, and suggested that the Court revisit its use in future cases.
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.
