In a decision[1] issued June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously found that the burden of proof on a plaintiff asserting an employment discrimination claim is the same, regardless of whether the plaintiff is from an historically-advantaged group (such as being a white, heterosexual male). The Court rejected the “background circumstances” rule previously applied by lower courts in “reverse discrimination” cases. That rule required plaintiffs from historically-advantaged majority groups to provide additional evidence suggesting their employer was inclined to discriminate against the majority. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Jackson, the Court held that Title VII does not impose a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases.
Background
Marlean Ames sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging that she was denied a management promotion and subsequently demoted because she is heterosexual. Ames claimed that she was denied the promotion in favor of a lesbian woman, who was less qualified and did not initially apply for the position. Later, her supervisor demoted Ames to the role she held when she first joined the Department, and a gay man was selected to fill Ames’s prior role.
The district court dismissed Ames’s lawsuit, and that ruling was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The lower courts found that Ames needed to prove her case by showing “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,” and that she did not present sufficient evidence to meet her burden of proof.[2]
Supreme Court Opinion
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” rule as presenting an additional and legally-improper hurdle for workers from a majority group. [3] Finding that the heightened standard of “background circumstances” is incompatible with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as well as Supreme Court precedent), the Court held that, in enacting Title VII, Congress did not intend to protect only members of historically-minority groups, but instead, guarantee equal treatment for “any individual.”
The Supreme Court criticized the “background circumstances” rule as imposing a uniform and specific evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs in derogation of Title VII’s plain language and in a manner that contradicts the flexible approach required in Title VII cases. The Court noted that it “has long rejected such ‘inflexible formulation[s]’ of the prima facie standard in disparate treatment cases … We do so again today.”[4]
This marks a rare instance in which all members of the Supreme Court agreed on the outcome. Note, however, that although the Court found that the long-accepted McDonnell Douglas[5] burden-shifting framework for evaluating employment claims continues to apply, Justice Clarence Thomas separately opined that that standard should be abandoned.
Implications for Employers
- Far-reaching impact: Although the case was decided in the context of Title VII, employers should assume that the Court’s holding will apply equally to discrimination claims brought under other federal statutes, such as age discrimination claims (although the Court’s reasoning should not apply to disability discrimination claims).
- Equal standards: All discrimination claims (with the exception of disability claims) will be evaluated under the same legal standards. This applies regardless of a plaintiff’s status in a majority or minority group. Courts no longer need to determine whether an employee belongs to a majority or minority group.
- Litigation: Employers in jurisdictions which incorporated the “background circumstances” rule may see an increase in reverse discrimination claims from majority-group plaintiffs.
- DEI initiatives: Without the “background circumstances” rule, DEI initiatives may face greater scrutiny.
- Review anti-discrimination policies: Ensure ALL employment policies protect ALL employees from discrimination.
- Keep clear and thorough documentation in employment decisions: In making employment decisions, ensure the focus is on objective qualifications and performance metrics.
- Training is key: Provide updated training on non-discriminatory practices emphasizing equal treatment for all employees.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf
[2] Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, 145 S. Ct. 118 (2024), and vacated and remanded, 2025 WL 1583264 (2025).
[3] Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 2025 WL 1583264 (2025).
[4] Ames, 2025 WL 1583264 at *5 (internal citations omitted).
[5] McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 793 (1973). Under that framework, the plaintiff bears the burden of “establishing a prima facie case” by producing enough evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive. If the plaintiff clears that hurdle, the burden then “shift[s] to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Id. at 802. Finally, if the employer articulates such a justification, the plaintiff must then have a “fair opportunity” to show that the stated justification “was in fact pretext” for discrimination. Id. at 804.
