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

Medicare Updates on Skin Substitutes: LCDs Withdrawn, Payment Changes Take Effect

January 23, 2026Medicare’s planned Final Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for skin substitutes were withdrawn in late December 2025, meaning previous coverage rules remain in effect. The 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule introduces a single payment rate of approximately $127.14 for these products. Providers should review implications for diabetic foot and venous leg ulcer treatments.Client Alert

Understanding the Seven Core Elements of an Effective Healthcare Compliance Program

January 22, 2026The Affordable Care Act requires healthcare providers participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP to maintain an effective compliance program. Guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Inspector General outlines seven core elements that form the foundation of these programs, from written policies and compliance oversight to auditing, training, and corrective action. This alert highlights each element and explains how practices can tailor compliance programs to their size and risk profile while meeting federal expectations.Client Alert

Preventing a Board Investigation

January 21, 2026Healthcare professionals in Ohio are subject to licensing board investigations that can lead to disciplinary action. Staying compliant with regulations, documenting carefully, and operating within your professional scope can help prevent issues. If contacted by a board, working with an attorney is critical to protect your license and rights.Client Alert

Ohio Board of Nursing Proposes Rule Changes for Nurses

January 14, 2026On Monday, January 12, 2026, the Ohio Board of Nursing (“BON”) released a package of proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code. There are two proposed changes to continuing education requirements that Ohio nurses should be watching.Client Alert

New Florida Law: Patient Overpayments Must Be Refunded Within 30 Days

December 22, 2025Effective January 1, 2026, Florida Senate Bill 1808 requires health care facilities and practitioners to refund patient overpayments within 30 days after an overpayment is identified. The law applies to overpayments tied to claims submitted to government programs or private insurers and introduces fines and disciplinary consequences for noncompliance. Providers should review billing and payment practices now to prepare for the new requirements.
Older posts
Newer posts