In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is inconsistent with the text and purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Through its decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039 (6-5-25), the Court held plaintiffs who are members of majority groups are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary burden to establish prima facie discrimination on the basis of a protected status under Title VII. This decision resolves a federal circuit split and reaffirms that Title VII protects all individuals from prohibited discrimination.
Background
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was initially employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary. After being promoted to program administrator, she later applied for a high-level management position within the agency. That management position was ultimately filled by another candidate, a homosexual woman. Shortly after interviewing for the high-level management position, Ames was demoted from her program administrator role to a secretarial position, resulting in a significant pay cut. The agency then filled Ames’s former position with a homosexual man. Ames filed suit under Title VII, alleging she was denied the management position and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
The federal district court granted the Ohio Department of Youth Services summary judgment in its favor, analyzing the factual and legal issues under the burden-shifting framework first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and subsequent precedent from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreting that standard. The first step of that framework requires a plaintiff-employee to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by providing evidence that the defendant-employer acted against them with a discriminatory motive. The district court held that Plaintiff Ames had failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not present evidence of background circumstances suggesting the state agency was “the unusual employer” — as characterized by the courts — that discriminated against a member of the majority. The lower court dismissed her claim accordingly.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Plaintiff Ames, as a heterosexual woman, did not meet her prima facie case because she did not present the required additional evidence of background circumstances to support her claim. Plaintiff Ames appealed the matter to the United States Supreme Court, which decided to hear the case and then vacated the decision of the lower courts.
Holding
In Ames, the Supreme Court rejected the heightened “background circumstances” requirement and reiterated its McDonnell Douglas framework that otherwise applies to claims of discrimination under Title VII. The first step of the framework places the initial burden on the employee to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by providing evidence supporting the existence of a discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff meets this burden, the employer must then produce evidence that a legitimate non-discriminatory reason motivated its action. Finally, if an employer provides such justification, the employee must then prove that the employer’s proffered justification for its action was merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Writing on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Jackson clarified that the first step is not meant to be onerous and that it requires an employee to show something more to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because they are part of a majority group that violates the plain language of Title VII.
The Supreme Court held the additional “background circumstances” rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other courts cannot fit into the text of Title VII or precedent, explicitly noting that nothing in Title VII distinguishes between a minority group and a majority group. Instead, as the Court clarified, the text is clear that it is unlawful to discriminate against any individual. The Supreme Court explained that, by applying Title VII to every individual, Congress demonstrated courts were not to impose special requirements on majority group plaintiffs.
The Court turned to its long-standing precedent to reinforce its ruling in Ames, noting it had previously held in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), that Congress intended to prohibit discriminatory preferences for any group — majority or minority — and that prohibited discrimination against white plaintiffs requires application of the same standards and framework as for minority plaintiffs, as articulated in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976). The Court also invoked its more recent holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), for the proposition that Title VII protects individuals and not groups. In the end, the Supreme Court found that Title VII’s protections do not vary based on whether a plaintiff is a member of the majority or a minority and that the Sixth Circuit’s imposition of additional requirements on Plaintiff Ames because she was a heterosexual woman was improper. The Court remanded the case to the lower courts “for application of the proper prima facie standard.”
Implications
The Ames ruling does not change Title VII’s legal framework but, rather, confirms that Title VII protects individual employees from prohibited discrimination regardless of group status. The Court sent a clear message that discrimination claims, including reverse discrimination claims, are to be handled the same way.
The Ames decision is yet another in a series of decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in recent years adhering to the plain language of federal laws and rejecting “judge-made doctrines” that deviate from the straightforward application of statutory text. Employers may see an increase in claims brought under Title VII as a result of the Court’s holding and are encouraged to consult with their legal counsel in evaluating the reasons underlying their decisions about employees.
[View source.]
