In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Sixth Circuit ruling that had imposed an elevated burden on majority-group employees—such as heterosexual individuals—who bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court made clear that plaintiffs should not face a steeper evidentiary threshold simply because they belong to a majority demographic.
Case Background: Ames v. State of Ohio Department of Youth Services
The case involved a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services who alleged she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and subsequently demoted and replaced by a gay man—both of whom, she claimed, were less qualified. She filed suit under Title VII, asserting discrimination based on her heterosexual status.
At the summary judgment stage, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the claims, relying on a requirement that plaintiffs who are part of a majority group must present additional “background circumstances” to suggest that the employer is unusually inclined to discriminate against the majority. This approach added an extra layer to the traditional McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used in disparate treatment cases.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed that reasoning, holding that the plaintiff’s status as a heterosexual required her to satisfy this added evidentiary burden as part of her prima facie case.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the “background circumstances” requirement is inconsistent with Title VII. The Court stated unequivocally that the statute “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs [and] minority-group plaintiffs.” It rejected the notion that plaintiffs from majority groups must meet any additional burden to proceed with a discrimination claim.
The Court emphasized that this added requirement improperly altered the well-established McDonnell Douglas framework and unfairly treated plaintiffs differently based on their demographic status. As a result, the matter was remanded to the district court to assess the plaintiff’s claims using the clarified, uniform legal standard.
Impact on Employers and Title VII Litigation
This decision resolves a long-standing circuit split. Previously, courts in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits had adopted the “background circumstances” test. In contrast, the Third and Eleventh Circuits had rejected it. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures a consistent standard nationwide for assessing Title VII disparate treatment claims, regardless of the plaintiff’s demographic background.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
- Heightened Litigation Risk in Certain Jurisdictions: Employers operating in jurisdictions formerly applying the “background circumstances” test—such as Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and others across the Midwest and Mountain West—should expect more claims from majority-group plaintiffs to proceed past the early stages of litigation.
- DEI Programs Under Scrutiny: The decision arrives amid increased political and legal scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Employers should evaluate whether their policies or practices could be interpreted as treating employees differently based on protected class membership—intentionally or not.
- Policy Review Recommended: Now is a prudent time to revisit anti-discrimination policies, promotion criteria, and internal complaint procedures to ensure they comply with Title VII in both spirit and application.
If you have any questions about the Supreme Court’s Title VII ruling, please contact any member of the Forework team.