An about face on reverse discrimination: The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the contentious issue of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars disparate treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In its June 5 ruling in the case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII.

In this case, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged that she was denied a management promotion and was subsequently demoted by the Ohio Department of Youth Services due to her sexual orientation. In a more typical discrimination claim under Title VII, to establish a prima facie case a plaintiff from a protected class need only meet a burden that is considered by controlling case law to be “not onerous:” i.e. evidence that the plaintiff applied for a position for which she was qualified and was rejected under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. However, under Sixth Circuit precedent, plaintiffs from a non-protected class were required to make an additional showing that the particular employer “discriminates against the majority.” Indeed, in the Ames case, the District Court and the Sixth Circuit both ruled against Ames, applying the “background circumstances” rule requiring her to demonstrate additional evidence that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against majority-group members. The appellate court was explicit about this additional burden on Ms. Ames:  “Ames is a heterosexual … which means she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.”

The Supreme Court reviewed these decisions in light of the precise language of Title VII. Reversing the lower court rulings, the Supreme Court held that the “background circumstances” rule is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, Title VII prohibits discrimination against “any individual” based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, without distinguishing between majority and minority groups. The Court thus emphasized that the text of Title VII applies protections equally to all individuals, regardless of their group membership. In doing so, the Court rejected the notion that majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher evidentiary standard to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and confirming that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on the plaintiff’s group membership.

Notably, Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, highlighted the broader issues with judge-made doctrines that lack textual basis in statutes. He criticized the “background circumstances” rule as an example of judicial overreach that distorts statutory text and imposes unnecessary burdens on litigants.  Additionally, the Ames decision resolves a circuit split regarding the evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs and reinforces the principle that Title VII’s protections are universally applicable.

In sum, the Ames decision marks a significant change in the application of Title VII to claims of individuals from majority groups to ensure equal application of the statute’s protections. By eliminating the “background circumstances” rule, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that discrimination claims should be evaluated based on the same standards for all individuals, irrespective of the plaintiff’s group membership.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.