Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision vacating a Sixth Circuit ruling that a plaintiff must present additional “background circumstances” evidence to prevail on her claim that she was subjected to discrimination because she is heterosexual.
The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit's ruling requiring "background circumstances" evidence, holding that it "requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one."
The plaintiff in the case, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual female, was a program administrator for the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames, who had worked for the department since 2004, claimed that she was denied a promotion to bureau chief for the youth services department in favor of a lesbian woman who was allegedly less qualified and who had not applied for the role. Shortly after that selection, the department demoted Ames and substantially cut her pay, replacing her with a gay man who she claimed was less qualified than her.
Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Ames could not satisfy her burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII. The Sixth Circuit concluded that Ames could not show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that [the department] is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Court ruled that Ames was required to make a showing of “background circumstances” “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case” of discrimination under Title VII.
The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 ruling, found that Title VII does not differentiate between majority and minority groups under Title VII. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the standard for proving disparate treatment “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. … The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle." In setting the same protections regardless of the individual plaintiff, the Court said, Congress did not authorize courts to mandate special requirements that apply solely to majority-group plaintiffs.
Ames is the most recent in a series of decisions examining the standards that apply to reverse discrimination claims and to discrimination claims generally. In 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Court invalidated race-based admissions programs at colleges and universities. In 2024, the Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis lowered the threshold of harm necessary to bring a claim of discrimination under Title VII. These decisions, taken altogether, could set the stage for additional challenges to decisions tied to (or perceived to be tied to) diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives of private and public employers and educational institutions.