The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a plaintiff who alleged she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted due to her sexual orientation. This overturns a lower court ruling imposing a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs.
The unanimous decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, overturns a lower court’s application of the “background circumstances” rule, which imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs—such as white, heterosexual, or Christian individuals—seeking to prove employment discrimination. Writing for the Court, Justice Jackson emphasized that federal civil rights protections under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act apply equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. The Court found that the “background circumstances” rule was inconsistent with Title VII’s mandate for equal treatment and sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
As to the details of the case, in Ames v. Ohio the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, had worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004 and alleged that she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified gay woman and then was later demoted to a lower-paying position. Her lawsuit, initially dismissed by lower courts due to the “background circumstances” requirement, now has the opportunity to proceed under the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The decision marks a significant shift in how workplace discrimination claims are handled, reinforcing the principle that all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law, irrespective of their group status. This removes the burden on the plaintiff to show additional circumstances, or “background circumstances,” that indicate the employer is an “unusual employer” who discriminates against the majority group.
The National Association of Counties (NACo) filed an amicus brief in conjunction with the National League of Cities and International Municipal Lawyers Association over concerns specific to local government entities as employers and potential defendants. From the NACo policy blog:
As one of the largest employers in the country, counties have a significant interest in cases like Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ames v. Ohio) that could expand county liabilities as employers. This specific case relates to Title VII discrimination lawsuits when claims of discrimination come from a member of a majority group. Title VII lawsuits are resource intensive and expensive to defend, and frivolous lawsuits could more easily be filed if the Sixth Circuit’s decision is reversed.
