On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which, given the subject matter of the case, impacts employers nationwide. The Ames decision confirmed that all Title VII plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination – regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group – must meet the same legal standard, rejecting the “background circumstances” rule that imposed a different, heightened evidentiary standard for plaintiffs belonging to a majority group.
Title VII and the “Background Circumstances” Rule
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from making employment decisions based on protected characteristics such as individual’s race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation), or national origin. In some Federal Circuits, the “background circumstances” rule required a plaintiff belonging to a historically advantaged or majority group (such as white, male, or heterosexual employees) to allege and establish additional evidence that the employer had a reason or inclination to discriminate against the majority group. This evidence generally consisted of background circumstances or statistical proof.
The “Background Circumstances” rule was followed in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits. While the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits did not apply a different evidentiary burden for majority-group plaintiffs.
Ames Case Context
Ames, a heterosexual white female employee, alleged she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted from her original position because of her sexual orientation. Ames was initially considered for a management position but lost the opportunity to a lesbian candidate. Shortly thereafter, the defendant hired a gay man to assume Ames’ role as program administrator, which came with a pay cut for Ames.
The Southern District of Ohio, applying the “background circumstances” rule, granted summary judgment against Ames, finding that Ames failed to establish a prima facie – or “on the face of it” – case of discrimination because she had not presented evidence of background circumstances. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Ames employer, noting that there was no evidence the employer had engaged in a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Jackson, writing for the Court in a 9-0 decision, rejected the additional burden imposed by the “background circumstances” rule, holding that Title VII does not impose a higher threshold in the form of an additional evidentiary requirement for majority group plaintiffs. Finding that Title VII prohibits discrimination against “any individual,” without distinguishing between a majority or minority group, the Court held that imposing a unique burden on majority-group plaintiffs to be incompatible with Title VII.
The Court also emphasized that the Background Circumstances rule contradicted the Cout’s instruction to “avoid inflexible applications” of the prima facie step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, a burden-shifting analysis applied by the courts when a discrimination claim lacks direct evidence (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). The Court noted that imposing such a burden on majority-group plaintiffs created a unique, uniform and inflexible burden that could not be well adapted to the context of each specific case.
The Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and directed the trial court to apply the proper prima facie standard.
Justice Thomas Questions the Future Use of the McDonnell Douglas Framework
In his concurrence, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas criticized the Background Circumstances rule as a judge-made doctrine that distorted Title VII’s statutory text. It’s worth noting that Justice Thomas indicated a willingness to consider whether the McDonnell Douglas framework, also a judicially-made doctrine, serves as a workable and useful evidentiary tool for evaluating Title VII claims at summary judgment.
It is also important to note that the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in Hittle v. City of Stockton, 145 S. Ct. 759 (2025), which may have allowed the Supreme Court to consider eliminating the McDonnell Douglas framework altogether. Justice Thomas and Gorsuch issued a dissent in the denial of certiorari.
Implications for Employers
Moving forward, all discrimination claims, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority or minority group, will be evaluated under the same legal framework. The Background Circumstances framework, which was applied in the Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and DC circuits, may no longer be used. This ruling eliminates the heightened evidentiary burden previously imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in those jurisdictions. As such, employers may see an increase in discrimination claims from majority-group employees that may have previously felt they could not satisfy the heightened “background circumstances” rule burden.
Importantly, this decision does not alter the legal standards of discrimination claims. Employers will still use the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework when responding to employees’ discrimination claims. This decision does, however, eliminate a key defense and argument used by employers to obtain an early dismissal of reverse discrimination claims.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Employers should continue to ensure workplace practices support equal employment for all individuals regardless of their race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or other classification and regardless of whether the employee would be considered a majority-group or minority-group individual. Concordance with this standard includes:
- Ensuring hiring, promotion, and termination decisions are completely merit-based;
- Confirming discipline, demotions or other adverse actions are based on documented business reasons completely unrelated to any protected category; and
- Providing consistent treatment across all demographic groups, understanding that courts will apply the same standard to every Title VII plaintiff.
Employers should also consider:
- Reevaluating HR policies and training in light of this ruling; particularly in the jurisdictions that previously followed the heightened standard;
- Conducting investigations of all internal complaints of alleged discrimination, even if the complaining employee is of a majority group; and
Finally, employers should understand that “reverse discrimination” claims are not a lesser category and unequivocally stand on equal footing with all other discrimination claims.
This ruling removes confusion. For employers, the message is clear: fair and equal treatment must be the rule, regardless of who is on either side of the matter. All employees, regardless of majority or minority group status, may not be discriminated against on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation), or national origin. And, if they are, all employees now have the same evidentiary burden to establish if they have been discriminated against, essentially “leveling the playing field” in the eyes of the courts.
Zascha Blanco Abbott is a Labor and Employment Law partner in the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., office of Kaufman Dolowich LLP. With more than 20 years’ experience, she represents management in all areas of employment litigation, including in claims of alleged non-compliance of wage and hour laws, class actions, harassment, and employee retaliation. zabbott@kaufmandolowich.com
Kevin Yombor is the Managing Partner of Kaufman Dolowich LLP’s Michigan office, based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., and also practices in the Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Office. He concentrates his practice on litigating and resolving business and corporate conflicts, directors and officers’ liability claims, employment matters, and commercial litigation matters, for companies and executives. kyombor@kaufmandolowich.com