Seyfarth Synopsis: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal of a heterosexual woman’s Title VII claims, concluding that she was improperly subjected to a heightened prima facie standard that required her to show “background circumstances” because she was a member of a majority group.
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in one of this term’s most closely watched employment law cases. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected—in an opinion written by Justice Jackson—the decisions of five federal circuit courts holding or suggesting that “majority group” plaintiffs must satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII. Specifically, the court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” test, which had required such majority group plaintiffs to show, in addition to the usual elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, evidence of “background circumstances” to support an inference that the employer is “the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” As a result, “background circumstances” such as evidence that the decision-maker was a member of the relevant minority group, or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group, is not required of a majority-group plaintiff to make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII.
In Ames, the district court applied the background circumstances test in granting summary judgment to the employer, and dismissing the Title VII claim of a heterosexual woman who claimed she was denied a promotion and ultimately demoted because of her sexual orientation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment decision. The Supreme Court vacated the grant of summary judgment, holding that the imposition of a heightened evidentiary showing for certain groups of Title VII plaintiffs (i.e., members of the “majority group”) “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII” or the court’s “longstanding precedents.” The court also declined the state’s invitation to affirm the grant of summary judgment on other grounds, sending the case back to the Sixth Circuit to apply the correct framework and address any other potential bases for summary judgment in the first instance.
While the decision was unanimous, and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch “joined the Court’s opinion in full,” Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurrence, joined by Justice Gorsuch, to “highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.” Specifically, the concurrence described the “background circumstances” additional requirement was “a paradigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text,” as well as be at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. The concurrence highlights how the “background circumstances” test could be difficult for courts to apply, requiring courts to perform the difficult or impossible task of deciding whether a particular plaintiff qualifies as a member of the “majority.”
