Supreme Court Clarifies Discrimination Test in Unanimous Decision
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously ruled that a plaintiff bringing an action for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is entitled to the same legal standard — regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group.
The Supreme Court overturned a Sixth Circuit decision that imposed a higher burden on majority-group parties — such as white, male, or heterosexual individuals — by requiring them to meet the so-called “background circumstances” test. Under that test, such parties had to show that their employer was an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Supreme Court found this heightened requirement inconsistent with both the text and purpose of Title VII.
The case arose from a lawsuit filed by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who alleged she was discriminated against based on sexual orientation. Ames claimed that in 2019, she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and was later demoted, with her former position filled by a gay man.
The Sixth Circuit dismissed her claim, holding that Ames failed to show “background circumstances” suggesting her employer discriminated against majority-group members. The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, emphasizing that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin — without regard to whether the plaintiff is in a majority or minority group.
The question before the court was whether the burden of proof in a Title VII disparate treatment claim depends on whether the plaintiff is part of a majority or minority group. The court found that plaintiffs alleging discrimination who are from majority groups do not have to meet any additional burden. Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson clarified that Title VII focuses on the individual characteristics of plaintiffs, not their group identity. The court did not reach the question as to whether Ames was actually discriminated against but instead remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.
Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, discrimination claims are analyzed under a three-part framework. The first step, which is at issue in Ames’ case, is for a plaintiff to produce evidence to support an inference their employer intended to discriminate. The court clarified that this step is not a high standard, that “[a] plaintiff may satisfy it simply by presenting evidence ‘that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.’” The background circumstances test added an additional evidentiary threshold, and the court found it was ultimately “flouts [the] basic principle” of Title VII.
The Supreme Court’s ruling seeks to bring clarity and uniformity, affirming that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals.
This decision comes amid the growing national debate over workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. While the court’s decision did not address DEI programs directly, it may influence how such initiatives are challenged in the future.
The author would like to thank Sidney Johnson, a J.D. Candidate at Washington and Lee University School of Law and a summer associate in Foley’s Jacksonville office, for her valuable contributions to this article.
