The Supreme Court is set to resolve a critical issue in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services—whether majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher evidentiary burden to prove reverse discrimination under Title VII. The case challenges the long-standing requirement that plaintiffs from majority groups must establish “background circumstances” suggesting discrimination, a standard not applied to minority-group plaintiffs.
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (Department), after being denied a promotion and subsequently demoted. In 2019, Ames served as a Program Administrator for the Prison Rape Elimination Act with a strong performance record. When she applied for a promotion to Bureau Chief, her boss—a gay woman—allegedly passed her over and promoted a gay woman to the position. Ames was then demoted to Executive Secretary, and her previous Program Administrator position was filled by a gay man.
Ames filed a discrimination complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred and authorized Ames to file a lawsuit in federal district court. The district court, however, sided with the Department, granting its summary judgment motion and finding that Ames failed to meet the “background circumstances” requirement. Specifically, the court found that Ames had not shown (1) that the decision-maker belonged to the minority group alleged to have engaged in the discrimination and (2) statistical evidence demonstrating a broader pattern of discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that failure to provide evidence of “background circumstances” was dispositive. Ames then petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
Before the Supreme Court, Ames argued that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” requirement is a heightened burden that applies to some plaintiffs and not others in violation of Title VII and case law. Ames further argues that this heightened burden inappropriately requires a judge to define what a majority group and a minority group are, in contradiction to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Pres. & Fellows of Harv. Coll., 600 U.S. 181, 229 (2023), covered by Dykema. In response, the Department argues that Title VII requires proof of a causal nexus between a protected characteristic and an adverse employment decision and that the “background circumstances” requirement is merely an application of Title VII’s requirement that a plaintiff must first introduce evidence sufficient to infer discrimination. The Department also argues that such a prima facie burden under Title VII is necessary to distinguish discrimination from “disappointment in employment results.” Notably, the United States, as amicus curiae, supports vacating the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
The Justices heard oral argument on February 26, 2025, focusing on what seemed to be the inherent unfairness in requiring some plaintiffs, but not others, to meet heightened burdens under Title VII. Justice Barrett questioned whether eliminating the “background circumstances” requirement really would lead to increased numbers of discrimination charges being filed. Justice Barrett also questioned the United States on the EEOC’s reason for rejecting the “background circumstances” requirement. Justice Kavanaugh clarified that Ames was looking for a simple ruling from the Court that the rules regarding discrimination are the same whether the plaintiff is straight or gay. Justice Jackson questioned whether there was a widespread misunderstanding in the courts of appeals regarding application of the “background circumstances” requirement. Justice Thomas questioned how the Department’s position could be proper when it applied the additional burden against only majority groups. Remarkably, when questioned by Justice Barrett about the inequality of a test favoring certain groups over others, counsel for the Department conceded that courts should apply the exact same burden for all situations.
A decision is expected later in the term. Stay tuned for Dykema’s decision alert discussing the Court’s forthcoming opinion.
For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, or Christopher Sakauye.