Resources

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously struck down the “background circumstances rule,” holding that Title VII claims must follow the same evidentiary standard for both majority and minority-group plaintiffs.

In sum, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, or other protected classes. Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 5th decision, the background circumstances rule imposed a higher evidentiary burden on plaintiffs from historically advantaged majority groups, requiring them to present additional evidence of background circumstances to support claims of employment discrimination, unlike minority-group plaintiffs who were not subject to this heightened standard.

Historically, courts have applied a three-step test for Title VII discrimination claims, known as the McDonnell Douglas framework. The first step requires a plaintiff to present evidence to support an inference of unlawful discrimination, which is generally not a high bar to meet. However, under the previous background circumstances rule, majority-group plaintiffs were required to provide additional evidence to support their allegation that an employer discriminated against the majority.

Specifically, the Ames case involved a heterosexual woman who brought a Title VII reverse discrimination claim against her employer alleging she was denied a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and was demoted in favor of a gay man. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the background circumstances rule, held that the woman must meet a higher evidentiary burden as a member of the majority-group (i.e., heterosexuals). The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Sixth Circuit’s holding, reasoning that the background circumstances rule “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII.” The U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that the disparate treatment provision of Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual on the basis of protected classes. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the text of Title VII does not draw “distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” therefore requiring identical standards of proof.

As always, employers should continue to focus on equal employment for all individuals regardless of characteristics such as their race, color, sex, national origin, or other protected classes. Further, employers should consider undertaking legal review of their equal employment opportunity and anti-discrimination policies to reflect an equal treatment standard and ensure compliance with Title VII and similar state laws.

Should you have questions of the recent decision, or the content of this client alert, please contact Partners and Co-Chairs of BMD’s Labor & Employment Group, Adam Fuller or Bryan Meek at adfuller@bmdllc.com or bmeek@bmdllc.com.