Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (6/5/2025)  Justice Jackson for the majority opinion for a unanimous Court.

Key takeaways:

  • The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.
  • Petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2019, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate—a lesbian woman. The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator
    and later hired a gay man to fill that role. Ames then filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The courts below analyzed Ames’s claims under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, which sets forth the traditional framework for evaluating disparate treatment claims that rest on circumstantial evidence. At the first step of that framework, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive. Like the District
    Court, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “ ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’ ” 87 F. 4th 822, 825. The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make
    this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.”
  • Justice Thomas (joined by Gorsuch) writes a concurrence rejecting judge made rules and doctrines broadly (!!). "I write separately to highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks. Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts."