Supreme Court Rules No Heightened Standard for Majority Group Plaintiffs
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, resolved a Circuit split regarding whether there should be an extra evidentiary burden for ‘majority group’ plaintiffs to satisfy when bringing a “reverse discrimination” claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Generally, plaintiffs who bring a Title VII action must establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by showing: (1) they applied for an open position (2) they were qualified for the position, (3) but were rejected under circumstances that one could infer constituted unlawful discrimination. As alluded to above, some Circuit Courts across the country required that plaintiffs in majority groups must satisfy another heightened burden to get past the summary judgement stage by showing the presence of “background circumstances [that] support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
In Ames, the Sixth Circuit dismissed a Title VII action brought by a heterosexual woman claiming discrimination based on her sexual orientation. She sought but did not receive a promotion, which went to a lesbian woman, and was shortly thereafter demoted from her current position, which was then filled by a gay man. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her case because she had not presented evidence of the background circumstances referred to above. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with, and struck down, this additional burden for majority group plaintiffs.
The Justices emphasized that Title VII looks to protect individuals, regardless of their status as majority or minority. The Court noted that it had previously ruled that Title VII makes discriminatory preferences for minority or majority groups equally unlawful. Finally, the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule ignores the Court’s instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the McDonnell Douglas framework and the general rule of thumb that the satisfaction of the first step of the framework should not be onerous. Accordingly, now all plaintiffs bringing Title VII actions must satisfy the same elements for a case to survive summary judgement, whether they are part of a “minority” or “majority” group.
The ruling itself isn’t revolutionary, if anything it’s a return to equal enforcement of Title VII nationwide. Notably, in a concurrence Justices Thomas and Gorsuch presage the possibility for substantial changes to Title VII actions. Justice Thomas questioned the continued viability of the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework itself to discrimination actions at the summary judgement stage. He would support overruling the McDonnel Douglas burden shifting framework with a return to applying the normal standard for summary judgement, that there be no genuine dispute about any material fact without requiring plaintiffs to carry an additional burden. Although the McDonnell Douglas framework still applies to summary judgement motions, if the McDonnell Douglas framework is ever overruled, it would result in more employment cases proceeding to jury trials.
For questions about the foregoing or any other labor and employment law topic, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Hoffman & Hlavac. To stay updated on key labor and employment law developments that affect your workplace, be sure to subscribe to our blog.