On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (No. 23-1039), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “majority group” plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim. This significant decision eliminates the “background circumstances” rule – which imposed a higher burden on plaintiffs to prove “reverse discrimination” claims – and levels the playing field for all plaintiffs under Title VII.
Factual Background
Plaintiff Marlean Ames – a heterosexual woman – applied for a promotion with employer Ohio Department of Youth Services. After interviewing for the position, plaintiff was denied the promotion and ultimately accepted a position that amounted to a demotion with lower pay. Thereafter – through decisions made by heterosexual individuals – her employer hired a gay man to fill her prior position and promoted a gay woman to the position plaintiff sought. Plaintiff filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging she was denied the promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
Procedural History
Relying on Sixth Circuit precedent, the district court granted summary judgment to the department finding that plaintiff failed to show the employer acted with discriminatory motive because she had not presented evidence of “background circumstances” suggesting it was “the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group.”
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that – as a member of a majority group (i.e., a heterosexual woman) – plaintiff was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.” The panel further explained that plaintiffs could satisfy this burden by showing that “a member of the relevant minority group . . . made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination . . . against members of the majority group.” Since plaintiff failed to present evidence of either, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the employer was entitled to summary judgment.
U.S. Supreme Court Weighs In
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court pondered “whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’” In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that “Title VII does not impose… a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs[,]” and that the “background circumstances” rule “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents[,]” both of which reinforce and make clear that the standard does not vary based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.
Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that:
- “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs[,]” but rather “makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to [the terms and conditions] of employment because of [their protected characteristics].’”
- The “background circumstances” rule ignores the Court’s instructions to avoid “inflexible formulations of the prima facie standard” because the proof required can vary by context and case.
- “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ – without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group – Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
Justice Clarence Thomas had more to say in a concurring opinion that:
- Criticized the “background circumstances” rule as “a product of improper judicial lawmaking” created by judges “applying their own ‘common sense.’”
- Highlighted the difficulty of requiring judges to decide “whether a particular plaintiff qualifies as a member of the so-called ‘majority.’”
- Noted in a footnote that the “background circumstances” rule is “nonsensical” in requiring courts to assume that only an “unusual employer” would discriminate against the perceived majority because “a number of this Nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against . . . so-called majority groups” as “American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘[DEI]’ initiatives and affirmative action plans.”
The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit decision, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
EEOC Issues Statement Celebrating the Ames Decision
Shortly after the decision was issued, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas released a statement “applaud[ing] the Supreme Court for unanimously confirming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ‘establish[es] the same protections for every ‘individual’ – without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group[.]’” Through the statement, Lucas:
- Highlighted Justice Thomas’ concurrence in which he criticized corporate DEI programs and affirmative action plans, stating that “[i]nitiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority”;
- Reaffirmed the EEOC’s commitment “to dismantling identity politics that have plagued our employment civil rights laws, by dispelling the notion that only the ‘right sort of’ plaintiff is protected by Title VII”; and
- Declared that “the flawed ‘background circumstances’ test no longer shields employers . . . in any jurisdiction nationwide from any race or sex discrimination that may arise from those employers’ DEI initiatives.”
Ames Decision v. NJLAD’s “Unusual Employer” Standard
Although the Court’s decision is most impactful for employers in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits – where the “background circumstances” rule was applied – this decision brings increased attention to “reverse discrimination cases.” Additionally, employers should be mindful that state and local laws may impose different standards. Specifically, New Jersey employers should note that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) applies a heightened evidentiary requirement under its “unusual employer” standard to “reverse discrimination” claims.
To prove a “reverse discrimination” claim under the NJLAD, the plaintiffs must show that their employer was the “unusual” type that discriminated against the majority. To support this assertion, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer has some reason or inclination to discriminate against the majority, or that there is “something fishy” about the facts that raise an inference of discrimination. While the NJLAD’s “unusual employer” standard remains unaffected by the Court’s decision, it remains to be seen whether New Jersey courts will relax or eliminate this requirement in the future.
Employer Takeaways
The impact of the Ames decision is significant for two reasons: In Circuits that had been applying the “background circumstances rule,” it lowers the hurdle for plaintiffs to establish “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII. Additionally, the increased discussion of “reverse discrimination claims” as a result of the Ames decision is anticipated to increase the volume of such claims nationwide.
Employers should also be mindful of Justice Thomas’ focus on and criticism of “DEI” initiatives that discriminate against those “perceived to be in the majority” as noted in his concurrence. Accordingly, employers should review their DEI initiatives, policies, and practices to confirm that they support inclusion and ensure that all employees and applicants are afforded equal opportunities, regardless of any protected characteristics.
Here are some steps that your organization may take to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws:
- Review employment policies, procedures, and practices to ensure they are applied consistently to all employees.
- Use transparent and job-related qualification standards for all major employment decisions (e.g., promotions, demotions, and involuntary transfers).
- Train appropriate personnel on raising awareness of and disrupting bias in decision-making.
- Ensure that complaints of “reverse discrimination” are treated the same as all other complaints of discrimination, which include requiring prompt and thorough investigation, and where applicable, appropriate remedial measures.
If you have any questions related to the Court’s decision or need assistance reviewing your organization’s employment policies or practices, please reach out to the NFC Attorney with whom you typically work or call us at 973.665.9100 or 619.292.0515.