In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that Title VII’s protections against discrimination do not require majority group individuals (including white people, men, and heterosexuals) to present additional evidence showing that they were treated differently because of their majority group status.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services involved a heterosexual woman who was hired in 2004 as an executive assistant. She was eventually promoted to program director and, in 2019, applied for a promotion to a managerial role. She interviewed for this position but was unsuccessful; the employer awarded the position to a lesbian woman. Shortly after this, the agency demoted Ames back to her position as executive assistant and replaced her with a gay man to fill the program director role. Ames filed suit and alleged that she was not promoted and eventually demoted because of her heterosexual orientation. The Sixth Circuit, applying the background circumstances test, dismissed Ames’ claims and found that Ames could not establish a claim of discrimination because she could not show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
The Supreme Court held that Title VII’s plain text does not require different evidentiary burdens for majority group plaintiffs – something that the D.C. Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit had required. Instead, Title VII requires that courts apply the same evidentiary standard to all plaintiffs regardless of what protected class applies to them.
The Supreme Court’s ruling offers much-needed clarity regarding the appropriate evidentiary burdens that apply to claims of discrimination brought by majority groups, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination claims. This ruling invalidates the background circumstances test and lowers the bar for majority group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims in these jurisdictions. It is possible that as a result of this ruling, employers may see an increase in these types of reverse discrimination claims, including claims involving DEI initiatives, which have recently faced some legal challenges. Ultimately, this ruling reinforces the importance of employers making employment decisions based on an individual’s qualifications and not based on an individual’s protected characteristics.
