Published: 5 June 2025 | by Emily Scace, Brightmine Senior Legal Editor
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary bar to prove workplace discrimination is no higher for majority group members than it is for minority group plaintiffs.
The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centered around a heterosexual woman who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman, then demoted to have a gay man assume her former role. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Both the federal district court that heard the case and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the employer, relying on a rule in the 6th Circuit that required members of majority groups to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
But the Supreme Court reversed, resolving a circuit split and rejecting the 6th Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule as inconsistent with the text of Title VII.
Title VII’s anti-discrimination protections focus on individuals, not groups, the Court reasoned.
“By establishing the same protections for every individual – without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group – Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the opinion. “The standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”
In other words, Title VII’s protections against discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic apply equally to all. For employers, the decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all employment decisions are based on objective, job-related reasoning rather than group identities.
The decision does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in her claim. Rather, the case is remanded for the lower court to reevaluate the evidence in accordance with the Supreme Court’s holding.
See our extensive HR resources and expertise
In an ever-changing regulatory environment, we have everything you need to stay in control and compliant.
About the author
Emily Scace, JD
Senior Legal Editor, Brightmine
Emily Scace has more than a decade of experience in legal publishing. As a member of the Brightmine editorial team, she covers topics including employment discrimination and harassment, pay equity, pay transparency and recruiting and hiring.
Emily holds a Juris Doctor from the University of Connecticut School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts in English and psychology from Northwestern University. Prior to joining Brightmine, she was a senior content specialist at Simplify Compliance. In that role, she covered a variety of workplace health and safety topics, was the editor of the OSHA Compliance Advisor newsletter, and frequently delivered webinars on key issues in workplace safety.