On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court struck down precedent in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that placed a heightened burden on members of a majority group bringing claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Title VII is the federal employment law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (which includes sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy), and national origin. The Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) is part of recent shifts that are trending to a focus not on past historical imbalance or concepts of equity but on any unequal treatment.
Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services
The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, worked in various secretarial and administrative roles at defendant Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames, a heterosexual woman, applied for a promotion, which was given to a lesbian woman. The agency then demoted Ames and filled her role with a gay man. Ames filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.
The District Court granted summary judgment against Ames, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court initially applied the traditional framework for evaluating discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence, as first created by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under that framework, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that she was subject to discrimination. This is a flexible standard under which the plaintiff must present evidence suggesting that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent. Plaintiffs can typically satisfy this burden by identifying members outside of plaintiff’s class that were treated more favorably than plaintiff, or by offering other evidence of discriminatory intent.
As the Sixth Circuit noted, Ames’s evidence that the defendant hired two non-heterosexual employees instead of Ames would ordinarily satisfy the prima facie standard. However, the District Court and Sixth Circuit imposed an additional burden on Ames, requiring her to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Sixth Circuit noted that this additional burden can be met by evidence that the decisionmaker was a member of the relevant minority group (e.g., if a gay or lesbian supervisor was responsible for hiring non-heterosexual employees instead of Ames), or with “statistical evidence” showing a pattern of discrimination against individuals in a majority group. Because Ames did not present either kind of evidence, she failed to meet her burden.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Sixth Circuit’s heightened burden rule, and similar case law in the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits, was consistent with the text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Jackson noted that the text of Title VII makes no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the law prohibits discrimination against “any individual” because of that individual’s characteristics; the law does not address discrimination against certain classes or groups. The Court looked to its landmark 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). In Bostock, the Court held Title VII prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Ames Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s heightened “background circumstances” standards flouted the “basic principle” announced by Bostock that Title VII “works to protect individuals of both sexes from discrimination, and does so equally.” 590 U.S., at 659. If majority-group plaintiffs are required to meet a heightened burden in order to succeed on their discrimination claims, then not all individuals are protected equally. Therefore, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule was inconsistent with Title VII, and vacated the decision below so the lower courts can apply the traditional prima facie case standard.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, issued a concurring opinion, in which he foreshadowed one of the likely results of Ames. In Footnote 3, Justice Thomas took issue with the Sixth Circuit’s assumption that only the “unusual employer” will discriminate against members of majority groups. Rather, Justice Thomas opined, through the proliferation of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, “a number of this Nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.”
Justice Thomas also invited future challenges to the basic prima facie case standard created by the Court in McDonnell Douglas, noting the Court’s rule in McDonnell Douglas was as much a judicial creation like the “background circumstances” rule rejected by the Ames Court.
Implications of Ames
The Ames Court’s rejection of the heightened standard, which gave additional protection to members of minority or historically marginalized groups, has reversed a trend by several Courts of Appeal. Furthermore, Justice Thomas’s call to overturn McDonnell Douglas is sure to generate more litigation questioning the basic rules applicable in employment discrimination cases. Employers and their counsel should monitor these developments as this area is continuing to change.
Based on this decision, there may be an uptick in what were traditionally referred to as reverse discrimination cases. The Supreme Court’s opinion reduced the standard for majority-group plaintiffs to establish a prima facie claim in a reverse discrimination case, which may lead to new lawsuits, agency actions, and internal employee complaints. The EEOC has already signaled a willingness to pursue similar cases. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s opinion, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas stated that the agency “is prepared to root out discrimination where it remains entrenched.” In March, the Commission and Department of Justice released new guidelines about unlawful diversity programs. For further information about employer compliance, see Buchanan’s alert on these new March guidelines, as well as President Trump’s Executive Orders on corporate diversity policies. In this ever-changing landscape, it is critical to review these new guidelines, along with the new EEOC Guidance, to ensure compliance with all federal regulations. Employers should consult with counsel to ensure that any DEI-type programs are made available on a non-discriminatory basis, both in policy and in practice.
Authors:
ChatGPT said: