On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard based on their majority-group status. This decision eliminates the "background circumstances" test previously applied in some federal circuits, which demanded additional proof from majority-group plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Case Background

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, started working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004. In 2020, she applied for a promotion but was passed over in favor of another employee whom she alleged was less qualified. Later, she was demoted. Ames filed a complaint alleging she was subjected to discrimination based on her sexual orientation—specifically for being heterosexual—in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Supreme Court's Decision

In a rare consensus, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court’s decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the unanimous opinion, stating that Title VII does not support imposing a different burden on plaintiffs based on their majority or minority status. The Court emphasized that all individuals, regardless of group membership, are entitled to equal protection under employment discrimination laws.

Key Findings

• Equal Standard for All Employees:

Title VII protects all employees equally from workplace discrimination—regardless of whether they are members of a traditionally underrepresented group. Requiring additional proof from some plaintiffs based solely on their demographic identity contradicts the plain language of the statute.

• Rejection of “Background Circumstances” Doctrine:

The Court rejected the idea that majority-group plaintiffs must show that the employer is "unusually inclined to discriminate" against majority groups. This doctrine, used in some circuits but not all, had no foundation in Title VII or its legislative history, the Court concluded.

• Prima Facie Case Should Be Uniform:

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, all plaintiffs—regardless of majority or minority status—must show that:

• They belong to a protected class;
• They were qualified for the position;
• They suffered an adverse employment action; and
• The position remained open or was filled by someone outside their protected class.
• Focus on Individual Rights:

Justice Jackson emphasized that Title VII is about protecting individuals, not groups. The law is neutral as to group status.

Implications

This landmark ruling resolves a split among federal appellate courts regarding the necessity of the "background circumstances" test for majority-group plaintiffs. It simplifies the process for individuals from majority groups to bring discrimination claims without additional proof based on their group status.

The case has been remanded to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.