In a rare unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) resolved a split among federal circuits in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039 (June 5, 2025), by concluding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects “any individual” from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and Congress did not authorize courts to impose extra burdens on certain plaintiffs based on their group identity.
The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (Department) since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a new position with the Department, but was passed over in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ames was demoted to a lower-paying secretarial position, and a gay man was hired to fill her previous role. Ms. Ames filed a lawsuit against the Department alleging that the promotion denial and demotion violated Title VII as the decisions were based on her sexual orientation.
Legal Background
Both the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus (District Court) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) ruled against Ms. Ames, applying an additional evidentiary standard known as the “background circumstances” rule. Under this rule, majority-group plaintiffs are required to show additional evidence suggesting that the employer is unusually inclined to discriminate against members of the majority—evidence beyond the standard requirements of the McDonnell Douglas framework, which is the typical methodology used when courts assess discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court noted five federal court circuits (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit), which governs Wisconsin’s employers), have “held or suggested” the heightened burden is appropriate. The Supreme Court rejected this higher burden of proof on plaintiffs who belong to ‘majority groups’—such as heterosexual or Caucasian employees—when bringing discrimination claims under Title VII, holding that Title VII’s text makes no distinction between majority and minority groups. The statute protects “any individual” from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and Congress did not authorize courts to impose extra burdens on certain plaintiffs based on their group identity.
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that the “background circumstances” rule contradicts both the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court’s prior precedents, including Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S 424 (1971) , and McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976), which affirm that employment discrimination against majority-group members is just as unlawful as discrimination against minorities. Put simply, the Supreme Court wrote: “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs.”
The Supreme Court also criticized the rigidity of the Sixth Circuit’s approach, noting that the McDonnell Douglas framework was never meant to be applied in an inflexible or formulaic way. The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
Concurring Opinion Questions Analytical Framework
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch) expressed broader concerns about the use of judge-created doctrines in employment discrimination cases. Justice Thomas argued that the “background circumstances” rule required courts to first determine if a particular plaintiff is in the majority. He raised questions such as whether a male in a profession which is predominantly female is a majority or minority plaintiff. He also stated, “defining the ‘majority’ is even more difficult in the context of race, as racial categories tend to be ‘overbroad’ and ‘imprecise in many ways.’”
While agreeing with the Supreme Court’s rejection of the “background circumstances” rule, Justice Thomas went on to question the legitimacy and usefulness of the McDonnell Douglas framework itself. He noted that the framework lacks a basis in the statutory text of Title VII and has led to confusion and inconsistency in lower courts, particularly when applied at the summary judgment stage. Justice Thomas suggested that in a future case the Supreme Court should reconsider whether McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), remains a viable tool for adjudicating discrimination claims.
Wisconsin Employers
The Ames decision impacts the existing legal analysis for Wisconsin employers because the Seventh Circuit (which includes Wisconsin) was one of the circuits noted by the Supreme Court as aligned with the Sixth Circuit’s view that majority group plaintiffs needed to satisfy the heightened evidentiary burden. The Supreme Court cited Mills v. Healthcare Service Corp., 171 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 1999), as having required the male plaintiff to satisfy the additional burden of demonstrating “background circumstances” supporting the suspicion that the employer was inclined to discriminate against the majority in Mr. Mill’s sex discrimination case. Mr. Mills had argued that a less-qualified female candidate had been promoted. In light of the Ames decision, the Seventh Circuit will now move forward without imposing any heightened burden on majority group plaintiffs.
As the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted in Puetz Motor Sales v. LIRC, 126 Wis. 2d 168 (1985), our state courts have often looked to federal court decisions involving Title VII for guidance when interpreting the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Thus, it can be expected that the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division and reviewing Wisconsin courts will not impose a higher burden on majority group plaintiffs. As a result, Wisconsin employers may see more complaints advancing “reverse discrimination” theories.
Conclusion
The Ames decision resolves any question that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of their membership in a majority or minority group.
