On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved an issue regarding the burden of proof required from individuals belonging to majority groups bringing a claim under Title VII.
The petitioner, Marlean A. Ames, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a management position within the agency but was passed over in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly thereafter, Ames was demoted from her role as program administrator, and a gay man was hired to fill her former position. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation. Both the trial court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The lower courts applied a higher evidentiary burden for Ames to succeed in her discrimination claim. Specifically, Ames did not provide “background circumstances” suggesting that the Ohio Department of Youth Services was the unusual employer that discriminates against members of a majority group.
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision and held that the requirement for majority-group plaintiffs to show “background circumstances” is inconsistent with the test of Title VII and the Court’s precedents. This decision abrogated previous rulings from several circuits that imposed such a requirement, including the Sixth Circuit’s decision in this case. The Court emphasized that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision does not distinguish between majority and minority group plaintiffs, focusing instead on individuals and prohibiting discrimination against “any individual” based on protected characteristics.
The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for employers. By eliminating the heightened evidentiary standard for majority-group plaintiffs, the decision ensures that all employees, regardless of their majority or minority status, are subject to the same standards when alleging discrimination under Title VII. This standard provided by the Supreme Court may lead to an increase in reverse discrimination claims, as majority-group plaintiffs no longer face additional burdens in establishing a prima facie case.
Employers should be aware that the decision underscores the importance of maintaining non-discriminatory practices and ensuring that employment decisions are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Employers may need to review their policies and training programs to ensure compliance with Title VII and to prevent potential claims of discrimination from any group.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in employment discrimination law, reinforcing the principle that Title VII protects all individuals equally, regardless of their majority or minority status. Employers must remain vigilant in their employment practices to avoid discrimination claims and to foster an inclusive workplace environment.
Contact the Labor & Employment Practice Group of Titus Hillis Reynolds Love if you have any questions.
