Written by Marco Costa From Wilson Elser on July 17, 2025
In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the standard used by the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits, which held that majority group plaintiffs had to meet a heightened burden of proof to establish discrimination. In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed that regardless of affiliation, plaintiffs in Title VII litigation are subject to the same burden of proof.to establish discrimination.
Background In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual woman, Ames, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex after being denied a promotion and demoted. The lower courts ruled against Ames, requiring her to show “background circumstances” due to her being a member of a majority group (heterosexual). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Ames failed to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.”
The Supreme Court Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII does not impose a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs, holding that the additional “background circumstances” requirement is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and prior Supreme Court case law.
Key Takeaways Following this key clarification, employers, particularly in the states principally affected by the ruling (Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming) and in the District of Columbia, may want to review their policies and practices to ensure that they are being applied equitably across all their employees, regardless of protected class membership. Retraining of supervisors also may be in order to ensure that employment decisions and communications are based on qualifications and not protected characteristics.
