On June 5, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Justice Jackson authored the opinion, which determined that the Sixth Circuit improperly applied an elevated burden in employment discrimination cases involving plaintiffs from majority groups, such as heterosexuals, males, or Caucasians. This approach is known as the “background circumstances” test.
Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating based on race or sex among other characteristics. Many lower courts employ a burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green to assess discrimination claims. The framework requires plaintiffs to present a prima facie case of discrimination; subsequently, employers must provide a race-neutral justification for their actions; finally, plaintiffs can argue that this reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.
In this particular case, Ms. Ames claimed she experienced discrimination when homosexual employees were favored over her—a heterosexual employee—pointing to promotions and demotions as evidence. Her argument drew on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.
The district court dismissed Ms. Ames’ claim due to failure to establish background circumstances at Step 1 of the McDonnell Douglas test during summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit upheld this decision but noted potential inconsistencies with Title VII and equal protection principles through Judge Kethledge’s concurrence.
Represented by the University of Virginia Supreme Court clinic, Ms. Ames petitioned for certiorari to challenge whether the background circumstances test aligned with Title VII provisions.
During oral arguments on February 26, 2025, discussions centered around both McDonnell Douglas and broader implications for majority group plaintiffs under Title VII while avoiding terms like “reverse discrimination.”
Justice Jackson’s opinion underscored that Title VII does not allow courts to differentiate between plaintiffs when evaluating employment discrimination claims—a stance consistent with Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.
Justice Thomas concurred with Justice Gorsuch and criticized judge-made tests lacking statutory basis—including McDonnell Douglas—calling for future reconsideration while condemning the background circumstances test itself due to its incoherence regarding group classifications and DEI program impacts.
Despite invalidating this test, race-conscious decisions might persist in lower courts as judges continue using race and sex factors in various legal contexts—a matter likely addressed by future Supreme Court cases.
