In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not required to provide additional "background circumstances" to support their claims. This decision eliminates a heightened evidentiary burden previously imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in certain federal circuits.
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had been employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion to a new management role but was not selected. Instead, she was passed over in favor of a lesbian woman. Not long after, Ames was removed from her position as a program administrator, and a gay man was hired to replace her. Believing these employment actions were motivated by bias against her sexual orientation, Ames files a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision bars employers from intentionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The statute expressly prohibits discrimination against “any individual” because of a protected trait, reinforcing that its protections apply equally to all persons, not just members of historically marginalized groups.
The case arose from the Sixth Circuit’s approach, which imposed a heightened evidentiary standard on certain Title VII plaintiffs, specifically those who are members of majority groups, when analyzing claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Both the District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Ames failed to provide sufficient “background circumstances” to suggest that the agency had discriminated against majority-group members.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach, holding that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs.
The Court emphasized that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone” nor add extra hurdles for certain individuals based on their group identity. The provision protects individual rights, not group-based entitlements. In short, if an employee alleges that they were discriminated against because of a protected characteristic, they are entitled to the same standard of proof and judicial treatment as any other plaintiff under Title VII, regardless of whether they are part of a majority or minority group.
This ruling emphasizes that all employment decisions must be based on neutral, non-discriminatory reasons, regardless of the employee’s protected characteristics or whether they belong to a majority or minority group. Title VII requires equal treatment for all individuals, without imposing different legal standards based on group identity.
If you have any questions about discrimination claims, Title VII, or any other employment law matter, please contact Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com or James Jansen at jjansen@airdowerwas.com.