Publication
United States Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Prima Facie Standard for “Majority” Plaintiffs in Title VII Cases
By John F. Lomax and Anthony M. Pimentel
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarified that Title VII plaintiffs who are members of a majority group have the same standard for establishing their claim as a plaintiff who is a minority. In other words, a white or male employee alleging discrimination or harassment does not have a heightened standard to prove their case. The Court struck down the Sixth Circuit’s long-standing “background circumstances” requirement, under which plaintiffs who are members of a perceived “majority” group — such as heterosexual employees alleging sexual-orientation bias, or white employees alleging race discrimination — had to produce additional, specific proof that their employer was “[an] unusual one who discriminates against the majority” before their claims could proceed. Id. at *1. The ruling reinforces that every individual — regardless of group status — is entitled to the same prima facie standard, and it calls into question any lower-court doctrine that imposes extra hurdles on certain Title VII plaintiffs.
Key Facts and Procedural Background
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, applied in 2019 for a management position. Id. The agency selected a lesbian candidate. Id. Shortly after the interview, Ames was removed from her program-administrator role, accepted a demotion to an executive-secretary position (with a significant pay cut), and the agency hired a gay man to fill the administrator slot. Id. at *2. Ames sued under Title VII, alleging disparate treatment based on sexual orientation. Id. Both the district court and Sixth Circuit applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and held that, as a “majority” (heterosexual) plaintiff, Ames had to show “background circumstances” indicating that her employer discriminated against majority-group members. Id. at *2-3. Finding no such evidence, the lower courts granted summary judgment for the agency. Id. at *3. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split — several circuits had adopted similar heightened standards, while others required no additional showing. Id. at *3-4.
Supreme Court’s Holding
Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, vacated the Sixth Circuit decision and remanded:
- Statutory Text Controls – Title VII protects “any individual” against discrimination “because of such individual’s” protected characteristic. Id. at *5. Nothing in the statute distinguishes between majority and minority plaintiffs. Id. at *6.
- Uniform Prima Facie Standard – The additional “background circumstances” prong conflicts with both the statutory text and Supreme Court precedent (Griggs, McDonald, Bostock). Id. at *5-6. All plaintiffs must satisfy the same, “not onerous,” prima facie burden under McDonnell Douglas: qualification, adverse action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Id. at *5.
- Flexibility, Not Rigidity – Creating rigid, group-based evidentiary hurdles will misapply McDonnell Douglas, which the Court has repeatedly described as a flexible framework sensitive to context. Id. at *6.
Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) concurred, highlighting broader concerns with judge-made doctrines that lack textual grounding — specifically questioning continued reliance on McDonnell Douglas itself.
Practical Implications for Employers and Employees
- The Same Standard Applies Nationwide
- Employers should expect that plaintiffs — whatever their demographic status — need only make the traditional, minimal prima facie showing to survive early dispositive motions.
- For employees, the decision eliminates an artificial barrier that often defeats claims at the summary judgment stage. Plaintiffs can focus on traditional indicia of bias (comparators, suspicious timing, inconsistent explanations, policy deviations, etc.) rather than proving that the employer discriminates “against its own.”
- Reassessment of Litigation Strategy
- Defense strategies premised on heightened majority-plaintiff standards must be reevaluated. Motions to dismiss or for summary judgment should address the merits (legitimate, non-discriminatory reason and lack of pretext) rather than rely on background-circumstance arguments.
- Plaintiffs previously deterred by the background-circumstances rule may now be more likely to pursue claims. Employers should be prepared for increased activity, particularly in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, or D.C. Circuits.
- Potential for Broader Doctrinal Shifts
- Although the Court did not overrule McDonnell Douglas, two Justices signaled willingness to reconsider judge-made burden-shifting frameworks. Future cases may further simplify or reshape Title VII pleading standards.
- Employers should monitor for developments that may tighten or relax summary judgment thresholds, mixed-motive analyses, and distinctions between direct and circumstantial evidence.
Best Practices for Consideration
- Review Policies and Decision-Making Processes
- Ensure hiring, promotion, discipline, and termination protocols are well-documented, consistently applied, and grounded in legitimate business criteria. Clear records often remain the strongest defense regardless of the claimant’s group status.
- Train Supervisors and Human Resources Personnel
- Reinforce that Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual based on protected traits, including claims of “reverse” or majority discrimination.
- Emphasize objective evaluation criteria and coach managers to avoid stereotyped remarks, informal “fit” assessments, or assumptions about who can and cannot be a victim of bias.
- Ensure EEO Policies Reflect Neutrality
- Confirm that anti-discrimination policies and training materials emphasize equal protection for all employees, regardless of whether they are part of a historically disadvantaged group.
- Prepare for Increased EEOC Activity
- The EEOC may update investigatory guidelines to reflect Ames. Expect a potential uptick in cause findings where majority-plaintiff claims previously faced summary dismissal.
Conclusion
Ames v. Ohio DYS underscores the Supreme Court’s continued insistence on a text-first approach to Title VII and clarifies that courts cannot impose extra hurdles on any subgroup of plaintiffs. Employers may want to take this opportunity to reinforce compliance programs, refresh training, and reassess defense strategies. By focusing on consistent, documented, nondiscriminatory practices — and recognizing that any individual may bring a viable claim — organizations can help mitigate risk and promote a fair, inclusive workplace.
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 500 attorneys practicing in 17 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and San Diego, California; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno-Tahoe, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos, Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
