U.S. Supreme Court Holds No Higher Standard for "Majority Group" Discrimination Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, resolving a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit split in the matter of Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). The Supreme Court resolved a dispute among circuit courts concerning whether a plaintiff who is a member of a historical majority group must meet an additional burden compared to employees who are members of a minority and show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority" in addition to the prima facie burden. The Supreme Court's answer was a resounding "no": The "'background circumstances' rule cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or [the Supreme Court's] longstanding precedents." Id. at *4.

Factual and Procedural History

Marlean Ames, the petitioner, is a heterosexual woman who has worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Ames brought a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services alleging she was denied a promotion due to her sexual orientation. Ames based her claim on the fact that the Ohio Department of Youth Services hired a lesbian woman for the management role she interviewed for and hired a gay man to fill her role as program administrator following her demotion.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, dismissing Ames' claims, with the Sixth Circuit affirming. Though the district court and circuit court analyzed Ames' claims under the well-known McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) framework, because Ames is heterosexual and, therefore, a member of a majority group, it required Ames to meet the additional burden to show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates the majority." Under the background circumstances rule, plaintiffs were required to present additional "evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people) made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination ... against members of the majority group." 87 F.4th at 825.

Supreme Court's Opinion

The Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the case, rejecting the proposal that members of a majority group can be held to a higher evidentiary standard than minority plaintiffs. The Supreme Court pointed to the text of Title VII, which contains no language that requires an individual in the majority to meet a higher standard than that of an individual in minority. Rather, Title VII universally prohibits discrimination against any protected class.

Practical Implications

In a practical sense, this ruling is unlikely to have a significant impact on the circuit courts that have already abandoned the "background circumstances" test. This decision will have an impact only in circuit courts that recognized the background circumstances rule, including U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits. In those circuit courts, a majority plaintiff will no longer be subjected to the higher standard under the background circumstances rule, which may make it easier for majority group plaintiffs to proceed past the motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment phases.

This decision is also in line with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) recent guidance in connection with its attack on what it has termed "illegal DEI." "The EEOC's position is that there is no such thing as 'reverse' discrimination; there is only discrimination." Expect to see a rise in EEOC enforcement over discrimination claims by members of historical majority classes along with private litigant lawsuits.

In addition, employers and practitioners alike should keep an eye on the Supreme Court's ability to take a case reexamining the well-established McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. In his concurrence, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining, Justice Clarence Thomas drew into question the familiar three-step burden-shifting standard that has become a hallmark of discrimination lawsuits. If taken up by the Supreme Court, a change to this standard could have a significant impact on how employment discrimination cases are considered.

Please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's Labor, Employment and Benefits Group to address questions you may have regarding policies and procedures impacting discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.