On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued its ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals with important implications for cases of discrimination in the workplace. The ruling, which can be read here, confirms that there is no heightened standard for a litigant in a majority group to plead a claim of discrimination based on that majority group status under Title VII by showing additional “background circumstances” and settles a split in the circuit courts of appeal.
In the Ames case, a heterosexual woman claimed she was passed up for promotion and then demoted to a previous position based on her sexual orientation. In both instances, the people given the roles instead of Ames were LGBTQ+.
The standard for discrimination claims is typically the McDonnell Douglas test, which generally requires a plaintiff to prove they (1) belong to a protected class; (2) were subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) were qualified for the job; and (4) that their employer treated similarly situated employees outside the class more favorably.
Prior to this ruling, several circuit courts, including the Tenth Circuit, required a majority group plaintiff to meet the McDonnell Douglas test and prove additional “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
In its June 5 ruling, SCOTUS made clear that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. “Rather, the provision makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’ ” The additional “background circumstances” requirement previously imposed by the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits is not consistent with Title VII’s text or case law construing the statute.
The practical implication for employers here is that your employees seeking to bring a claim of discrimination as members of a majority group do not have the additional evidentiary burden of proof to show “background circumstances” that was previously required in the Tenth Circuit (which includes Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), but the same standard for discrimination claims as all other litigants. It remains to be seen, but it is a possibility that this ruling could increase the number of discrimination claims, particularly those involving employer diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Employers Council members can contact us with questions regarding the ruling and its potential impact.
Heather Hancz is a managing attorney for Employers Council.