Legal Intern Isabelle Silva contributed to this alert.

In a rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services rejected the use of “background circumstances” to create a higher burden on employees who belong to a majority group in proving discrimination claims under Title VII. 

Marlean Ames is a heterosexual woman who had worked with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she interviewed for a management position, but the Department hired another candidate, a lesbian woman. The Department subsequently demoted Ames and hired a gay man to fill her prior position. Ames filed suit under Title VII, alleging that the denial of the promotion and demotion were because of her sexual orientation. Relying on the legal precedent applicable in the Sixth Circuit, the lower district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, finding that Ames failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination, because she had not presented evidence of “‘background circumstances’ suggesting that the agency was the “rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed.  

Courts have routinely noted that the plaintiff’s initial, prima facie case is “not onerous.” However, the Sixth Circuit, and four other circuits (Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and D.C.), required that a plaintiff belonging to a “majority” group  show “background circumstances” to support an inference of discrimination.  The “background circumstances” rule required a plaintiff to show either that a member of the minority group had made the challenged employment decision, or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, to resolve this Circuit split.

Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that the “background circumstances” rule could not be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s longstanding precedents. Thus, the Court noted that Title VII “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” Rather, the law focuses on individuals, not groups. “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group— Congress [in Title VII] left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” 

The Court was also not persuaded by Ohio’s argument that the “background circumstances” rule did not create a heightened burden on Ames, but was “just another way of asking whether the circumstances surrounding an employment decision” give rise to an inference of discrimination. Citing the Sixth Circuit’s own language, the Court noted that Ames was clearly held to a heightened evidentiary standard. 

Takeaways for Employers 

The Ames decision most directly impacts employers with operations in the states located in the Circuits that had previously applied the “background circumstances” rule, including Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and Colorado, making it more difficult to dismiss reverse discrimination cases early.  

Although the First Circuit, where Massachusetts sits, did not apply the “background circumstances” test to Title VII cases, Massachusetts employers are reminded that the employment discrimination laws are intended to protect every employee, regardless of whether they are considered in a “minority” group or not. Given that DEI programs have fallen into disfavor with the current administration, employers should review their current employment practices, including with respect to hiring, training, promotions, and compensation, and diversity initiatives, and ensure that they do not raise potential “reverse discrimination” concerns.  

Employers should also keep clear documentation to support non-discriminatory practices. Maintaining appropriate, structured and delineated methods will prove helpful not just for defending against a potential lawsuit, but for general business practices.  

Questions

If you have any questions, please contact a member of Casner & Edwards' Employment Law practice.