On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that could significantly impact how courts evaluate reverse discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the Court will decide whether plaintiffs from majority groups must present “background circumstances” suggesting their employer is inclined to discriminate against majority-group employees.
Understanding Title VII and the Issue at Stake
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The law applies to private and public sector employers with 15 or more employees, as well as to the federal government, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Enforcement is handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Traditionally, courts have required plaintiffs in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases, those brought by individuals from majority groups, to provide additional evidence that their employer is the “unusual employer” who discriminates against majority members. This standard, known as the “background circumstances” requirement, is now under scrutiny.
Case Background
The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a long-time employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Hired in 2004 as an executive secretary, she was promoted to program administrator in 2014. In 2019, Ames applied for a bureau chief position but was not selected. Soon after, she was removed from her program administrator role and offered a return to her previous position. She accepted and was later promoted again, but the bureau chief role was awarded to a gay woman, and her former program administrator position was filled by a gay man.
Ames filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The Sixth Circuit held that Ames failed to make a prima facie case because she did not demonstrate “background circumstances” suggesting the employer discriminates against majority-group employees.
Arguments Before the Court
Ames argues that the “background circumstances” requirement unlawfully imposes a higher burden on majority-group plaintiffs, contrary to the text and purpose of Title VII. She contends that Title VII does not distinguish between majority and minority plaintiffs and that this additional hurdle undermines the statute’s protections.
The Ohio Department of Youth Services defends the requirement as a neutral method for assessing causation in discrimination claims. The agency maintains that all Title VII plaintiffs must demonstrate a causal link between their protected status and the adverse employment action and that the “background circumstances” requirement is simply a tool for evaluating that link.
Implications for Employers
The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify the legal standards governing reverse discrimination claims under Title VII. Until then, employers should remain vigilant in ensuring that all employment decisions, including hiring, promotion, demotion, and termination, are based solely on legitimate, non-discriminatory factors.
Maintaining clear documentation, applying consistent evaluation criteria, and providing regular anti-discrimination training can help mitigate legal risks and promote fair, inclusive workplaces for all employees, regardless of majority or minority status.
If you have any questions about Title VII, state or local discrimination laws, or any other employment law matter, please contact Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com or James C. Jansen at jjansen@airdowerwas.com.