/>iTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be front and center in 2025 as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear, and decide, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit, in Ames, held that plaintiffs from the “majority-group” (i.e., white, heterosexual, Christian/Catholic, etc.) are required to demonstrate “background circumstances” that support their claims. Typically, plaintiffs will show evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (i.e., black, transgender, Muslim, etc.) was the one who “made the employment decision,” or they show a “pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group.”
For example, in the Ames case, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the employee, a white, straight, Christian employee could file suit under Title VII for race, sexual orientation, and religious discrimination and survive a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. This would be a significant change from the current standard, where a reverse discrimination plaintiff is required to demonstrate “background circumstances,” that, typically, would not survive either motion.
Several briefs before the Supreme Court argue that the “lower courts are littered with judge-made rules that have no basis in Title VII” and that the “rule contradicts reality.”
Recent decisions by the Supreme Court interpreting statutes demonstrate that there is a possibility that the high court will side with the employee in Ames and hold that reverse discrimination plaintiffs are not required to show “background circumstances.” Should the employee prevail in Ames, it may result in an influx of reverse discrimination claims and lawsuits by “majority-group” employees.
Based on that possibility, employers should consider ensuring that their policies are up-to-date, that they conduct thorough workplace investigations when discrimination claims are made, and that they implement their policies uniformly for all employees.
Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
