Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

Client Alert
June 11, 2025

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.  

Title VIILabor and Employment Law
Client Alert

USCIS Policy Change Impacting Work Authorization: Advisory for Employers and Human Resources

December 8, 2025USCIS has issued a policy memorandum pausing immigration benefit processing for individuals from 19 high-risk countries and requiring a re-review of certain previously approved cases. This change may affect work authorization, employment verification, and workforce stability. Employers and HR teams should review impacted employees and update compliance procedures.Client Alert

CMS Releases CY 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule with Key Payment and Telehealth Updates

December 4, 2025CMS issued the CY 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule on October 31, 2025, with changes effective January 1, 2026. The Final Rule includes increases to the conversion factor, a new efficiency adjustment, updates to practice expense methodology, permanent telehealth policy changes, revised payment for skin substitutes, expanded rules for Part B drugs and biologicals, enhanced policies for Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers, and new care management and behavioral health services.Client Alert

Ohio Department of Medicaid Updates: Key Changes to Physician Reimbursement Rates in Early Parenthood

December 3, 2025The Ohio Department of Medicaid has proposed amending Ohio Administrative Code Rule related to covered Medicaid reimbursements for physicians. Beginning on January 1, 2026, they are proposing an increase to rates for prenatal care, childbirth, and infant care and provider visits.Client Alert

Name, Image, and Likeness Agreements in Healthcare

November 14, 2025For example, some healthcare providers have begun to utilize "Name, Image, and Likeness" agreements to promote the brand they have created through their healthcare practice.  We have seen the most healthcare NIL activity with longevity and wellness providers, as well as orthopedics.Client Alert

Compounding GLP-1 Drugs - Recent Updates

November 13, 2025Recent guidance from the Ohio Board of Pharmacy (“BOP”) indicates that providers should generally use the FDA approved GLP-1 drug, rather than a non-FDA approved compounded version of the medication. Importantly, if a GLP-1 drug is commercially available, it cannot be copied through compounding. Currently, compounded copies of Tirzepatide and Semaglutide are not permitted.
Older posts