Supreme Court Levels the Field for Civil Rights Plaintiffs Under Title VII

In a decision with important implications for civil rights plaintiffs, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a judicially created doctrine that made it harder for some people to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, focused on a rule that a number of federal courts had been using to impose additional burdens on discrimination plaintiffs who happen to be part of majority groups.

The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted in favor of LGBTQ colleagues due to her sexual orientation. Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claims, not based on a full review of the evidence, but because they held that she had not made a special showing of “background circumstances”—evidence that the employer is the allegedly rare type that discriminates against people in a majority group. This judge-made rule added an extra layer of proof not found in the text of Title VII.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that approach. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made clear that Title VII does not distinguish between majority and minority plaintiffs—it protects “any individual” from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. That means courts can’t impose extra hurdles on plaintiffs simply because they don’t belong to a historically disadvantaged group. The Court also criticized the “background circumstances” rule for being vague and unworkable, requiring judges to make difficult and sometimes arbitrary calls about who counts as part of the “majority,” depending on shifting and context-specific population data.

This is potentially a meaningful decision for all discrimination plaintiffs, as it reinforces that Courts should not carve out exceptions to the civil rights laws are that aren't grounded in concrete statutory text. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, took the opportunity in their concurrence to question whether the broader McDonnell Douglas framework—a commonly used method for evaluating discrimination claims—has become too rigid and complex, providing judges too many opportunities to kick civil rights claims out of the courthouse for reasons that have no basis in statute. While the majority did not go that far in this decision, the opinion leaves the door open for future reconsideration of how these cases are evaluated.

If you believe you’ve been treated unfairly at work because of a protected characteristic, this decision reinforces your right to be heard—and your right to be judged by the same standard as everyone else. If you believe you’ve experienced discrimination in hiring, firing, or any workplace decision, reach out to an employment attorney to discuss your legal options.