Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) revived a lawsuit filed by a white, heterosexual woman who claimed she was the victim of reverse discrimination. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rule requiring employees in so-called “majority groups” to satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to succeed in discrimination claims. Specifically, the court rejected the “background circumstances” test, which required plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to put forth more evidence to succeed in a discrimination case. The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, argued that the requirement unfairly imposed a higher burden on her as a heterosexual woman. SCOTUS agreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said “that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII 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.”
Ms. Ames, who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an Administrator, applied for a promotion in April 2019, but did not get it. Instead, it was awarded to a gay women. Ms. Ames was also demoted, and a gay man replaced her. She filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming sexual orientation discrimination, but her case was dismissed at the summary judgment phase when the court applied the “background circumstances” test to her claim. The U.S. Court to Appeals (Sixth Circuit) affirmed, noting that Ms. Ames failed to establish any “background circumstances” that suggested discrimination.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision, concluding that the imposition of additional burdens for members of “majority groups” to prove discrimination is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of anti-discrimination laws. Instead, these laws prohibit discrimination against “any individual” based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation) and national origin. Stated otherwise, in the eyes of SCOTUS, the standard for proving employment discrimination should be the same for everyone, regardless of whether the plaintiff belongs to a minority or majority group protected by law.
Takeaways for Employers
The Ames case serves a reminder that all employment decisions — whether hiring, firing, or some decision in between (i.e., performance management) — should be based on merit and skill instead of non-job-related factors, such as race or gender. This is particularly important in the current workplace environment, as President Trump has issued multiple Executive Orders aimed at eliminating so-called illegal DEI programs that in the opinion of the administration “threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services.” We previously discussed President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders here and here.
Skoler Abbott will be hosting an afternoon seminar on June 26, 2025, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. to discuss legal issues presented when hiring and firing employees, as well as tips and strategies for managing non-performing employees. More information about the seminar, entitled “Best Practices for Hiring, Firing, and Managing Employee Performance,” can be found here.