June 5, 2025
Written by Shawn McLain & Penney Rector
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that eliminates a higher evidentiary burden previously imposed on “majority group” employees who claim to be victims of employment discrimination. The ruling is particularly important for Missouri employers, as the Eighth Circuit was among the federal courts that applied the now-rejected rule.
Background of the Case
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over 20 years. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was passed over in favor of a lesbian candidate. Shortly after, Ames was demoted from her program administrator role, which was then filled by a gay man, resulting in a significant pay cut.
Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, claiming discrimination based on her sexual orientation. Both lower courts ruled against her, applying the “background circumstances” rule, which required majority group plaintiffs to prove additional evidence that the employer was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,” such as showing a minority group member made the decision or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against majority groups.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the unanimous Court, ruled that the “background circumstances” rule violates Title VII. The Court held that federal employment discrimination law treats all individuals equally, with Title VII’s protections extending to everyone regardless of their majority or minority group status. As Justice Jackson wrote, “[b]y 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.”
Impact on Employers and Next Steps
The same evidentiary bar for all discrimination claims under Title VII regardless of the employee’s demographic characteristics. This is particularly significant given Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion, noting that many large employers have overtly discriminated against those they consider the majority group members through diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
What Employers Should Do Now
- Examine and Update Policies: Examine policies to ensure they prohibit discrimination against any group, including majority groups, and apply equally to all employees.
- Evaluate All Complaints: Ensure that all complaints are evaluated thoroughly, without regard to the complainant’s identity.
- Continue Best Practices: Apply workplace policies uniformly, maintain detailed records related to employment actions, properly train employees on discrimination and harassment, and continue to assess the potential for legal risks and implement mitigation steps as necessary.
We’re Here to Help
At Mickes O’Toole, we are available to assess whether your employment practices, DEI programs, or policies expose your organization to potential legal risk under Title VII or other federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Our attorneys also have extensive experience counseling employers on how to respond to complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
We will examine the Supreme Court’s decision in detail during our upcoming School Law Summer Seminars.
Please reach out to one of our attorneys if you would like support navigating these evolving legal issues.
