The U.S. Supreme Court sided with an Ohio woman who claimed to be the victim of reverse discrimination because she is heterosexual.
Justices ruled unanimously June 5 that a federal appellate court erred in determining Marlean Ames’ majority-status sexual orientation required her to meet a higher standard for discrimination than required of marginalized groups under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ames filed suit in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2020, claiming the agency unfairly preferenced gay and lesbian employees in denying her a promotion and later demoting her.
Marlean Ames (screencap)
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in the state’s favor in the Title VII lawsuit, and the Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld that decision in 2024.
But in overturning those rulings, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Ames to pursue her case in the lower courts without the extra burden of proving her employer specifically targets heterosexuals for discrimination.
Supreme Court precedent “makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in writing the court’s opinion.
Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of color, race, national origin, religion or sex and makes no distinction for majority race or sexual orientation. But some federal courts have required plaintiffs in some cases to prove employers specifically discriminate against majority groups.
Jackson said that “background circumstances” rule “flouts” the principles of Title VII by subjecting “all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case.”
Ames, who worked for Ohio’s youth services department since 2004, was passed over for a new management position in 2019, with the job going to a lesbian woman. Ames later was demoted from her existing position, which was filled by a gay man.
In January, the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund joined other racial justice groups in filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to consider the insidious forms of discrimination faced particularly by marginalized people.
“Congress enacted Title VII to address workplace discrimination, which the drafters noted particularly plagued Black people. The legislative record and decades of jurisprudence underscore that America’s history of discrimination against certain groups both precipitated and necessitated Title VII,” the brief explains.
It goes on to acknowledge members of majority groups are protected under the law but adds, “Black people and members of other marginalized groups are far more likely to endure employment discrimination than their majority group counterparts.”
Janai Nelson
Legal Defense Fund President Janai Nelson said Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is part of the wider movement to dismantle racial justice laws in the U.S.: “This latest Supreme Court challenge involving a bedrock civil rights statute is part of a broader effort to dismantle the civil rights framework that has supported the success of our democracy and our economy.”
LDF Assistant Council Alexsis Johnson said the Sixth Circuit misapplied the “background circumstances” rule by applying it too rigidly in the Ames case, and that the plaintiff is using the error to eliminate in cases where it is more appropriate.
“While majority groups are, of course, protected by Title VII, there is a persisting legacy of discrimination targeting Black people and other historically marginalized groups that cannot be ignored. Studies have shown that courts do not apply Title VII to the disadvantage of majority groups,” Johnson said.
The “background circumstances” concept evolved from the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in The McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which established frameworks for considering Title VII discrimination claims.
But only five of the nation’s 12 federal appeals courts — the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and D.C. circuits — used the rule before it was ended by the Supreme Court’s new ruling.
Justice Clarence Thomas, with Justice Neil Gorsuch concurring, called the “background circumstances” requirement an example of judicial lawmaking. “In other words, courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII’s antidiscrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so.”
The rule “is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution,” Thomas added. “Thankfully, today’s decision obviates the need for courts to engage in the ‘sordid business’ of ‘divvying us up by race’ or any other protected trait. I simply observe that the ‘background circumstances’ rule is emblematic of the serious challenges that can arise when judges invent atextual requirements.”