This past June, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which rejected the heightened burden that some appeals courts had imposed on “majority” group employees (for example, white, male, etc.) who brought discrimination claims against their employers. The Court held that an added “background circumstances” requirement, which some appeals courts had required of “majority” groups, was inconsistent with the language of Title VII. This decision represents yet another step away from a more color-conscious approach in favor of “color-blindness.”
Sixth Circuit Ames Decision: Raising the Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. In her Title VII lawsuit, she alleged that she was denied a promotion because her employer promoted a lesbian woman instead. Ames also claimed that she was then demoted from her position and replaced by a gay man.
Title VII claims, like those brought by Ames, are analyzed under the “McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework,” which requires the employee to prove certain elements to show that an employer intentionally discriminated. The Sixth Circuit, which had jurisdiction over Ames’ case, had long imposed a unique, additional requirement for such “reverse discrimination claims” – claims in which the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. More specifically, plaintiffs in these cases were required to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” – for example, evidence that the person who made the employment decision is a member of the relevant minority group, or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against employees in the majority group.
Ames could not prove these “background circumstances.” The managers involved in terminating Ames were both heterosexual, and Ames’ statistical evidence (that her own demotion and non-promotion showed a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals) was rejected because, under the applicable law, statistical evidence was required to be based on situations outside of the plaintiff’s own experience. Thus, the Sixth Circuit reemphasized that majority-plaintiffs were held to a heightened standard.
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down the “Background Circumstances” Rule
Ames is the latest example of a notable trend at the U.S. Supreme Court (and in other political arenas) exhibiting hostility to color conscious policies. Conservatives, especially the Trump Administration, have fiercely advocated for the dismantling of DEI in the workplace. By holding that Title VII applies to all individuals regardless of their membership in a particular group, the Supreme Court continues its shift towards favoring color blind approaches.
Just like the 2023 decision of Students for Fair Admissions, where the court invalidated color-conscious college admission policies, Ames implies similar rhetoric towards workplace diversity policies. Indeed, Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, reflects the growing animosity towards DEI policies, stating, “American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans.” Now, through emphasizing that Title VII applies to any individual regardless of their identity, the Supreme Court continues to reshape its discrimination precedent.
Federal Discrimination Law Remains Unchanged
So, what does this mean for employers? The message remains the same: do not discriminate against your employees. Ames does not change the foundational principles at the heart of civil rights laws such as Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. These laws are still in place and unchanged. Ames only makes it easier for plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination to pursue their claims without being preliminarily thrown out of court by holding them to the same standard as traditional discrimination claims. As to workplace DEI policies, employers are advised to stay informed of the changing landscape surrounding these policies to ensure they are aligned with emerging laws and regulations.
Next Steps
If you have questions about your workplace policies, especially amidst the murky landscape surrounding the validity of DEI, or are concerned about what this ruling means for your business, the attorneys in McCarthy Lebit’s Employment practice group are available to assist you.
To seek counsel from our Employment group, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.
___
McCarthy Lebit would like to thank law clerk Bridget G. McCourt for her work in assisting with the preparation of this legal blog post for The More Report.
