Supreme Court Rejects Higher Bar to Prove Majority-Group Discrimination

Author: Emily Scace, Brightmine Senior Legal Editor

June 5, 2025

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary bar to prove workplace discrimination is no higher for majority group members than it is for minority group plaintiffs.

The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centered around a heterosexual woman who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman, then demoted to have a gay man assume her former role. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Both the federal district court that heard the case and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the employer, relying on a rule in the 6th Circuit that required members of majority groups to show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

But the Supreme Court reversed, resolving a circuit split and rejecting the 6th Circuit's "background circumstances" rule as inconsistent with the text of Title VII.

Title VII's anti-discrimination protections focus on individuals, not groups, the Court reasoned.

"By establishing the same protections for every individual - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the opinion. "The standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group."

In other words, Title VII's protections against discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic apply equally to all. For employers, the decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all employment decisions are based on objective, job-related reasoning rather than group identities.

The decision does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in her claim. Rather, the case is remanded for the lower court to reevaluate the evidence in accordance with the Supreme Court's holding.