Articles

Employment Law Update: U.S. Supreme Court Ends Double Standard: All Employees Get Equal Protection in Title VII Discrimination Claims

A Landmark Ruling: No Special Hurdles for Majority-Group Plaintiffs

On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous and highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, clarified a critical point in employment law: all employees—regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group—are entitled to the same standard when bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”). This ruling sweeps away conflicting lower court decisions that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs, such as white or heterosexual employees.

Background

Title VII’s disparate treatment provision prohibits employers from intentionally discriminating against job applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII claims are analyzed under a three-step framework developed in a case entitled McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973) to decide whether a case should be dismissed at the summary judgment stage or proceed to trial. The first step under that three-step framework is the critical issue in the Ames case, which requires the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a “prima facie” case of discrimination; that is, “she applied for an available position for which she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.”

The Case at a Glance

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged she was denied a promotion that was awarded to a lesbian woman and that she was later demoted in favor of a gay man. Lower courts dismissed her claim, applying a “background circumstances” rule that required her, as a member of a majority group, to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to carry her burden of proof at the first step of the process. The additional evidence she needed to prove was that her employer was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”  

The Supreme Court rejected this approach, holding that Title VII does not impose a higher burden of proof or special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. Rather, Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals (without regard to majority or minority status). Specifically, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires majority-group members to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—was inconsistent with Title VII and Supreme Court precedent.
 

• Uniform Standard for All: Title VII protects “any individual” from discrimination based on protected characteristics (i.e., race, color, religion, sex, or national origin).
• No More “Background Circumstances” Rule: Employers cannot argue that majority-group plaintiffs must bear an additional burden to prove a “prima facie” case of disparate treatment discrimination.  
• Focus on Individual, Not Group: Employers should ensure that all employment decisions are free from discriminatory bias, regardless of the employee’s demographic group.

1. Review Policies and Training: Ensure anti-discrimination policies and training materials reflect that all employees are protected equally under Title VII, regardless of their group status.
2. Document Decisions Carefully: Maintain clear, objective written records of employment decisions and the reasons for them—hiring (i.e., why one candidate was selected over another), promotion, discipline, and termination—to demonstrate legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for employment actions taken.
3. Audit DEI Programs: Employers should review their DEI programs with employment counsel to confirm those programs do not discriminate against majority status groups or create the perception of bias against majority-group employees.  
4. Train Managers: Educate supervisors and HR professionals that discriminating against an individual because of that individual’s majority status is unlawful, and that all complaints must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.

---