TIME TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a pivotal case addressing allegations of “reverse discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case examines whether plaintiffs from majority groups, such as heterosexual individuals, must meet a higher evidentiary standard to establish claims of employment discrimination. See the recent reports on the case. The Court is likely to “level the playing field. “
Case Background
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had been employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, under a gay supervisor, Ames applied for a promotion to bureau chief of quality but was passed over in favor of a lesbian colleague. Subsequently, Ames was demoted, and her position was filled by a gay man. Ames contends that both individuals were less qualified than she was, alleging that these employment decisions were based on her sexual orientation, thereby constituting discrimination under Title VII.
Procedural History
Ames filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asserting that she faced discrimination due to her heterosexuality. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, applying the “background circumstances” test. This test requires majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional evidence suggesting that the employer is one that unusually discriminates against the majority. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that Ames failed to meet this heightened standard.
Legal Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court is whether majority-group plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII must demonstrate “background circumstances” indicative of an employer’s bias against the majority, a requirement not imposed on minority-group plaintiffs. This issue has led to a circuit split: five federal appellate courts apply this heightened standard, while seven do not, with two circuits expressly rejecting it.
Relevant Precedents
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): Established the burden-shifting framework for Title VII discrimination claims, requiring plaintiffs to first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976): Held that Title VII prohibits racial discrimination against both minority and majority groups, affirming that white employees are protected under the statute.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020): Determined that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity falls under the prohibition of sex discrimination in Title VII.
Supreme Court’s Considerations
During oral arguments on February 26, 2025, several justices expressed skepticism about the validity of the “background circumstances” test. Justice Neil Gorsuch referred to a “radical agreement” among the justices questioning the necessity of this heightened standard for majority-group plaintiffs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted that Title VII’s text does not differentiate between minority and majority groups, suggesting that all individuals should have equal protection under the statute.
Implications
A decision in favor of Ames could lower the evidentiary threshold for majority-group plaintiffs, allowing them to pursue discrimination claims without the additional burden of proving “background circumstances.” This outcome may lead to an increase in reverse discrimination lawsuits and prompt employers to reassess their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to ensure compliance with nondiscriminatory practices.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services holds significant potential to reshape the legal landscape of employment discrimination claims. By addressing the disparate standards applied to majority and minority plaintiffs, the Court may reinforce the principle that Title VII’s protections extend equally to all individuals, irrespective of their membership in majority or minority groups.
If you think you may have a legal claim, contact Giordano Law Offices today for a free consultation.