On June 5,2025, the Supreme Court release a 9-0 decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. This employment law case centers around how Title VII anti-discrimination protections apply to plaintiffs whose protected characteristics are part of a majority group. In Ames, Marlean Ames, a straight white woman, filed a Title VII lawsuit against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, on the grounds that she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted based on sex discrimination, which includes sexual orientation discrimination.
In her opinion, Justice Jackson focused on the text of the Title VII statute, which includes a disparate-treatment provision that bars employers from intentionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation) or national origin. The Sixth Circuit required that a plaintiff bringing a case who belongs to a majority group provide additional proof of their discrimination. In Ames, the Supreme Court holds that this expectation for one group of people violates the text of the Title VII statute. Importantly, neither this decision, nor the underlying decisions, determined whether the department discriminated against Ames in its employment decisions. It merely established that the Sixth Circuit applied a standard incorrectly and remands the case back to the lower courts for fact-finding.
The Supreme Court Holds That Plaintiffs From Majority Group Identities and Minority Group Identities Must Be Treated the Same When They Bring a Title VII Claim
Justice Jackson stated the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents. Her opinion keeps a narrow focus on maintaining the McDonnell Douglas framework, while ensuring that plaintiffs from any background have the same evidentiary burden at step one of the framework.
According to Justice Jackson’s opinion, the text of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against “any individual” because of that person’s protected characteristics. She asserts, “Congress left no room for court to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
At the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive. The Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” 87F. 4th 822, 825. The courts reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to provide additional evidence because she occupies a majority-group identity, in contrast to a plaintiff from a minority-group identity. The lower courts reasoned that majority-group plaintiffs typically satisfy this burden by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, LGTBQ+ people) made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against straight people at the agency.
The Supreme Court has remanded the case for the courts below to consider Ames’s Title VII claims absent the “background circumstances” standard the Sixth Circuit applied.
What This Means for Workplace Discrimination
As Justice Jackson noted, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs, and her opinion marks a return to the text of the statute. At the same time, this decision will make it easier for white and/or heterosexual plaintiffs to bring so-called “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII. Furthermore, while the opinion is a strict interpretation of the statute, it is situated in the broader national conversation spurred by the Trump administration’s sweeping attacks against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in the workplace.
Employers and employees should closely monitor legal developments in the coming months, as the full impact of this decision unfolds.
For assistance navigating the impact of this decision and for advice on compliance, please reach out to the Berke-Weiss Law team for guidance.
