/>iBefore June 5, 2025, the law (at least in some jurisdictions) was that majority-group employees (e.g., white or heterosexual) had to show additional “background circumstances” in addition to a prima facie case to prove discrimination – a heightened evidentiary standard. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the “background circumstances” rule in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, deciding that members of a majority group do not have to meet a different, higher evidentiary standard in discrimination claims.
The Facts
Marlean Ames, an Ohio resident, claimed her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged that she applied for a promotion and not only was she denied the promotion, but she was demoted from her current position. The employee who was awarded the promotion and the employee who was placed into Ames’ position were both members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Ames filed a lawsuit, and the lower court granted ODYS summary judgment, reasoning that Ames had failed to show the required “background circumstances” to demonstrate that she was not promoted and was demoted because of her sexual orientation.
The Sixth Circuit Upholds the Background Circumstances Rule
The Sixth Circuit agreed, holding that the heterosexual female plaintiff did not allege sufficient background circumstances to establish her claim of reverse sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. The Sixth Circuit explained that plaintiffs:
“typically make the showing with evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people) made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group.”
Supreme Court Reverses
The Supreme Court rejected the background circumstances rule, holding that the rule does not square with the text of Title VII or long-standing precedents. The Court reiterated that the protections under Title VII apply to every individual, regardless of the individual’s membership in a minority or a protected group.
The Court’s decision in Ames lowers the evidentiary burden, making it easier for employees in a majority group to succeed in their discrimination claims. Given the Trump administration’s recent efforts regarding workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, we will likely see an uptick in discrimination claims brought by majority-group employees.
Takeaways
- Continue to review your employment practices and policies to ensure they comply with Title VII’s uniform standard.
- In evaluating employment decisions, make sure that you are looking at the defensibility of all decisions, not just ones involving employees in minority classes.
- This decision is consistent with EEOC Guidance from earlier this year stating that majority-group employees must meet the same evidentiary standards in discrimination claims as minority-group employees and that “there is no such thing as ‘reverse’ discrimination.”
