草榴社区

by Jonathan Krol, Esq.

In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., the Supreme Court of the United States eliminated the heightened evidentiary burden imposed on non-minority group plaintiffs in Title VII claims. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision bars employers from intentionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The unanimous opinion, penned by Justice Jackson, resolves a Circuit split born under the long-standing McDonnell Douglas framework.

The Underlying Case

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual white woman and former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“ODYS”), sued ODYS alleging she was passed over for promotion and demoted based on her sexual orientation. Specifically, she alleged that a lesbian woman was given the promotion, and a gay man was placed in her former role following demotion.

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, plaintiffs alleging discrimination bear the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, by demonstrating that: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they suffered an adverse employment action; (3) they were qualified for the position; and (4) they were replaced by someone outside the protected class or treated differently than similarly-situated, non-protected employee(s). But, Sixth Circuit precedent required plaintiffs who are members of a majority group (here, heterosexual) to demonstrate they were unlawfully discriminated against despite their majority status. Under this elevated burden, a plaintiff alleging a “reverse discrimination” claim must show that “background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” 

Using that standard, the District Court for Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of ODYS, finding that Ames failed to meet this extra “background circumstances” requirement, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Prior to the Ames decision, the federal circuits were split on whether the additional “background circumstances” element should apply to Title VII claims. The Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits imposed this heightened burden on majority-group plaintiffs, while the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth circuits have not, and the Third and Eleventh Circuits have outright rejected the requirement.

The SCOTUS Decision

The sole question before the Court was whether the added “background circumstances” requirement was proper under the Title VII analysis. Focusing on the text of the statute, Justice Jackson noted that the disparate-treatment provision “draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” The statute operates to protect any person from discrimination, and a heightened burden on non-minority groups cuts against the plain text.

The “background circumstances” rule ignores the Supreme Court’s instruction to avoid “inflexible applications” of McDonnell Douglas’s prima facie elements. By including this additional element, majority-group plaintiffs have been subject to a higher burden in every case. The Court’s opinion points out that ODYS barely contested any of Ames’s arguments and acknowledged that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision language imposes the same burden on both majority and minority groups. The Court found that the “background circumstances” requirement is inconsistent with Title VII and McDonnell Douglas and remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.

What Ames Means for Future Title VII Litigation

How does the case affect employers and employees?  Employers may see increased claims from employees who did not historically fall into traditional minority groups.  The Court has now made discrimination claims easier for majority status/affiliated employees to challenge adverse employment decisions and harder to dispose of those claims on motion.  The decision also makes it patently more difficult to hire employees based on their minority status; class-neutral considerations and qualifications should be determinative with respect to hiring/advancement decisions.

Employers should take steps to recognize and mitigate risks associated with decisions that adversely affect employees, whatever their protected class and status, ensuring that discriminatory animus does not impact (or even appear to impact) personnel decisions. The importance of treating all employees consistently and fairly is paramount.

If you have questions about the Ames decision or have issues related to discrimination in the workplace, please feel free to reach out to one of our Employment Practices/Civil Rights Defense attorneys.