[co-author: Leah Shepherd]
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that employees who are part of a majority group do not have a higher evidentiary standard to prove workplace discrimination. The ruling revived a heterosexual woman’s lawsuit alleging she was discriminated against in favor of employees who identify as gay and potentially opened the door for more discrimination lawsuits from people in majority groups.
Quick Hits
- In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who are part of a majority group cannot be held to a higher standard of proof in employment discrimination cases.
- In this case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual woman alleged sex and sexual orientation discrimination.
- The Court’s decision potentially opens the door to more lawsuits from plaintiffs who belong to majority groups.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group employees to provide extra evidence of employer discrimination to succeed in discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling means that, going forward, majority-group discrimination claims (or so-called reverse discrimination claims) will be analyzed using the same framework as minority-group discrimination claims, where plaintiffs can rely on their own circumstances to prove a prima facie case.
The background circumstances rule “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents,” the Supreme Court stated.
This decision comes against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders to stop “illegal” workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and reshape how federal policy defines sex discrimination and gender.
Background
The plaintiff in this case is a heterosexual woman who was employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She applied for and interviewed for a promotion, but the department instead offered her another job that amounted to a demotion with lower pay—which she took. The department later hired a gay man to serve in her prior role and promoted a lesbian woman to the position she had sought. The plaintiff alleged employment discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation under Title VII.
The district court granted summary judgment for the department, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish “background circumstances,” which could include statistical evidence or evidence that gay managers made the employment decisions at issue. The plaintiff appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling under the background circumstances test. In today’s decision, the Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling.
No Background Circumstances Required Under Title VII
The Supreme Court held that Title VII does not require majority group members to show additional background circumstances. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that, “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.”
As such, according to this decision, Title VII applies whenever individuals are treated differently because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Justice Jackson stated that, by establishing “the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
Justice Jackson further rejected the Sixth Circuit’s application of the background circumstances rule, as it was contrary to Title VII’s statutory text and the Court’s precedent. Such an application “misses the mark by a mile,” Justice Jackson wrote.
In addition, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he criticized judges for creating “atextual legal rules and frameworks.” He argued that “judge-made doctrines,” such as the background circumstances rule, “can distort the underlying statutory text.” Justice Thomas further questioned whether the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting test for Title VII claims remains a useful tool, potentially inviting future reconsideration.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is consistent with guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which released two technical assistance documents to explain what constitutes illegal DEI programs in the workplace. In those documents, the EEOC rejected the background circumstances rule. The agency takes the position that majority-group plaintiffs bear the same evidentiary standard as minority-group plaintiffs.
Going forward, this case may invite additional discrimination claims by members of majority groups. Therefore, employers may wish to review their policies and practices to ensure protection of all employees against discrimination, regardless of whether the employee falls within the minority or majority group.
