Supreme Court Rejects Higher Discrimination Standard for Majority-Group Title VII Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the “background circumstances” rule in discrimination claims involving majority-group employees on June 5, overturning precedents held by five federal circuit courts of appeals. This lowers the standard employees from historically advantaged groups must meet to prove employment discrimination. It also means that these plaintiffs must now meet the same standard as minority-group plaintiffs.
This unanimous ruling marks a significant shift in employment discrimination law that employers and employees should be aware of.
What claims did the court address?
The case involved Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames alleged that she faced discrimination when the department awarded a managerial position to a lesbian woman instead of her, and she was then demoted from her program administrator role, which was filled by a gay man. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, claiming that her sexual orientation was the basis for the adverse employment actions.
The district court granted summary judgment for the agency. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying a “background circumstances” rule requiring majority-group plaintiffs, like Ames, to demonstrate that the employer discriminates against the majority.
How did the court rule?
The “background circumstances” rule required plaintiffs from historically advantaged groups—typically, white or male employees—to provide additional evidence that their employer was inclined to discriminate against the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, emphasized that this additional burden was inconsistent with Title VII’s text and long-standing precedents. The court clarified that Title VII provides equal protection to all individuals, regardless of their membership in a minority or majority group and prohibits imposing special evidentiary requirements on majority-group plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court’s decision resolved a split in the circuits. It mandates that all courts evaluate discrimination claims under the same framework, without requiring proof of “background circumstances.”
What does this mean for employers and employees?
The Ames decision has far-reaching implications for employers and employees alike. By eliminating the “background circumstances” rule, the court ensured that all Title VII claims are assessed under a uniform standard. This change is expected to lead to an increase in discrimination claims from individuals across all demographic groups, including those historically perceived as being in the “majority.”
Employers should take note of this shift and continue to prioritize equal employment opportunities for all individuals, regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability or other classifications. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining robust anti-discrimination policies and practices to ensure compliance with Title VII.
Does the ruling impact other employment law standards?
In a concurring opinion, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch highlighted potential issues with long-standing judicial doctrines, particularly the McDonnell-Douglas framework. Courts use this standard when there is no direct evidence of discrimination. The justices criticized this framework for imposing excessive proof requirements at the summary judgment stage and suggested that it may not align with existing standards.
The justices argued atextual judicial doctrines like the “background circumstances” rule and the McDonnell-Douglas framework complicate proceedings and lack a textual basis in Title VII. Justice Thomas advocated for reconsidering the McDonnell-Douglas framework ’s role in summary judgment. He emphasized the importance of relying on straightforward legal applications, as outlined in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to avoid unnecessary complexity in Title VII cases. While the Ames case did not directly address the McDonnell-Douglas framework, the justices’ comments may influence future litigation strategies and judicial interpretations.
Is this part of a trend in employment discrimination law?
The Ames decision, alongside other recent Supreme Court rulings such as Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harv. Coll. and Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, signals a transformative period in employment discrimination law. Employers must remain vigilant in their efforts to foster inclusive and equitable workplaces. Legal practitioners should be prepared for evolving standards and increased litigation in this area.
Please contact Helen Jay or any member of the Phelps labor and employment team if you have questions or need advice or guidance.
