Proving employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a race that already requires leaping over legal hurdles. Previously, “majority” group employees (i.e., those whose protected characteristics would be considered representative of the societal majority) in certain regions of the United States were required to jump an additional hurdle — the “background circumstances” evidentiary standard — just to stay in the race. The United States Supreme Court has now removed that extra hurdle. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services sends a clear message: when it comes to discrimination under Title VII, no employee—whether in a minority or a majority group—working for a covered employer should be forced to clear more hurdles in proving their case than another. By striking down the “background circumstances” requirement, the Court has ensured that every employee runs the same legal race. 

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 221 L.Ed.2d 929 (U.S. 2025) involved a heterosexual woman, Ames, who was employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Ames applied for a management position in 2019. The employer interviewed Ames but then hired a lesbian woman instead. Shortly afterward, Ames was demoted from her position and replaced by a gay man. Ames filed a suit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her heterosexual orientation. 

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio disagreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the employer. In doing so, the district court opined that Ames, as a traditional majority-group plaintiff, failed to provide “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Accordingly, Ames could not establish a claim for discrimination under Title VII. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit subsequently affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Ames failed to meet the heightened “background circumstances” standard for proving discrimination. Ames appealed, thereby placing the matter before the United States Supreme Court. 

In a rare unanimous response, the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s plain language reflects its protection of all individuals equally. The Court further recognized that the “background circumstances” evidentiary standard was only applied to individuals because of their majority-group characteristics. The Court deemed this approach inconsistent with both Title VII’s plain language as well as Court precedent on applying inflexible rules in evaluating evidence of discrimination. Accordingly, the Court held that Title VII does not impose on majority-group plaintiffs any need to meet a heightened “background circumstances” evidentiary standard; all individuals, whether from majority or minority groups, face the same evidentiary requirements under the law. 

For employers, the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames gives further notice that all employees should be treated equally in terms and conditions of employment, regardless of majority or minority status. As such, employers would be wise to review their EEO policies, DEI initiatives, and internal training programs for any indication of preference or bias and consult with legal counsel as needed. Businesses that heavily emphasize diversity and inclusivity in hiring should likewise evaluate whether those practices remain aligned with Title VII in this ever-evolving landscape. As Ames reflects, employers will need to carefully balance their diversity and inclusivity goals with unbiased employment practices. 

Significantly, while the Ames decision only eliminates the additional “background circumstances” evidentiary standard, Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion took direct aim at, and questioned the utility of, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting standard, which employers routinely rely on in defending discrimination cases. Employers covered by Title VII and/or any state equivalent should monitor these legal developments and any related impact in the locations where operations exist, as any shift in the evidentiary structure of Title VII claims could alter how discrimination cases are litigated. 

If you have any questions about Title VII, please contact Michael J. Lufkin (mlufkin@lippes.com), Robert G. Riegel, Jr. (rriegel@lippes.com), Carlyn E. Hazelip (chazelip@lippes.com), or any member of our Employment Practice Team. 

Research and contributions for this alert were made by Akram Laroussi (Summer Associate, Jacksonville Office) and reviewed by Employment Practice Team members Michael J. Lufkin (Partner) and Robert G. Riegel, Jr. (Partner), and Team Leader Amy Habib Rittling (Partner).