The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This ruling resolves a split among the Circuit Courts of Appeal concerning the applicable evidentiary standard in such cases.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), or national origin. The Act also prohibits retaliation against individuals who have asserted rights under Title VII. The issue in this case is whether a Title VII plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must show additional “background circumstances” to establish her prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination.
Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“Department”) in various roles since 2004. In 2019, the Department interviewed Ames for a newly created management position but ultimately hired another candidate, a lesbian woman. Several days after Ames interviewed for the new management position, the Department demoted her from her position as program administrator to the secretarial role she was hired to fill originally in 2004. The demotion carried with it a hefty pay cut. The Department subsequently hired a gay man to fill Ames’ program administrator position. Ames then filed this lawsuit against the Department under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
Under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, a Title VII plaintiff may make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination by showing that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. However, the federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a majority-group plaintiff such as Ames must go further to meet her prima facie burden by showing “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the [Department] is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Based upon this elevated evidentiary standard, the District Court and the Sixth Circuit held that Ames did not establish a prima facie case because she failed to show such background circumstances.
The Supreme Court disagreed and unanimously held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule – which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim – “is not consistent with Title VII’s text or [the Supreme Court’s] case law construing the statute.”
The Supreme Court reasoned that the text of Title VII’s disparate treatment provision does not draw a distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, Title VII makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (emphasis in original). The Court concluded that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
Why is Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services important?
- The unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court confirms that Title VII protects all individuals equally regardless of membership in a majority or minority group
- Because this is a Supreme Court ruling, it establishes a nationwide precedent and overrules those Circuits that have held a majority-group plaintiff to a higher evidentiary standard when pursuing a Title VII claim
- This ruling may prompt employers to review DEI policies and practices to ensure that they promote inclusiveness and do not favor any group or groups over another
Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025)
