Discover how companies are navigating the stress test of their...
Read More
News Blog
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS), striking down a controversial “background circumstances” rule that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases.
The landmark ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, issued on June 5, 2025, clarifies that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group.
The decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, is set to reshape workplace discrimination litigation across the United States, particularly in the 20 states and Washington, D.C., covered by the five federal circuits that previously applied the now-defunct rule.
A Case Rooted in Alleged Bias
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, began her career at DYS in 2004 as an executive secretary and advanced to program administrator by 2014, overseeing compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).
Known for her strong performance, Ames received glowing reviews, including a 2018 evaluation from her supervisor, Ginine Trim, a lesbian woman, praising her work in 11 performance categories.
However, in 2019, Ames faced setbacks that would spark her legal battle. She was passed over for a promotion to bureau chief of quality in favor of another lesbian woman and was later demoted from her administrator role, which was filled by a 25-year-old gay man.
Her salary was significantly reduced, prompting Ames to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
Ames claimed that DYS favored LGBTQ+ employees, violating Title VII, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—a protection extended to sexual orientation following the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.
However, both the district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claims, citing her failure to meet the “background circumstances” rule.
This rule, applied in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, required majority-group plaintiffs (e.g., white, male, or heterosexual individuals) to provide additional evidence—such as statistical proof of a pattern of discrimination against the majority or evidence that a minority-group member made the employment decision—to establish a prima facie case.
Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the rule created an unfair double standard, placing a heavier burden on majority-group plaintiffs compared to their minority-group counterparts.
The Court agreed, delivering a ruling that levels the playing field.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: A Unified Standard for All
In a concise yet forceful opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that Title VII’s text, which prohibits discrimination “against any individual” based on protected characteristics, does not permit courts to impose different evidentiary standards based on group identity.
The “background circumstances” rule, the Court found, was a “categorical requirement” that conflicted with the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973).
That precedent outlines a three-step process for proving disparate treatment under Title VII without direct evidence:
1. The plaintiff must show they belong to a protected class, were qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the employer treated similarly situated individuals outside the protected class more favorably.
2. The employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action.
3.The plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer’s reason was a pretext for discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that Ames could have met the prima facie standard but for the “background circumstances” requirement.
The Supreme Court rejected this additional hurdle, noting that it unfairly burdened majority-group plaintiffs with demands not imposed on others, such as statistical data or proof of a minority decision-maker.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion, called the rule “itself discriminatory” and questioned the broader McDonnell Douglas framework, suggesting it may merit future scrutiny.
The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and remanded Ames’ case for reconsideration under the standard McDonnell Douglas framework, giving her a renewed chance to prove her claims without the extra evidentiary burden.
A New Era for Workplace Discrimination Claims
The Ames ruling has immediate implications for employers, particularly in the 20 states and Washington, D.C., covered by the five circuits that previously applied the “background circumstances” rule.
Legal experts predict a surge in so-called “reverse discrimination” claims, as majority-group plaintiffs—such as white, male, or heterosexual employees—face fewer obstacles in pursuing Title VII lawsuits.
“This decision doesn’t rewrite Title VII, but it removes a significant barrier for majority-group plaintiffs,” said Sarah Werner, an employment law attorney based in Columbus. “Employers need to be more diligent than ever in documenting their decisions to avoid costly litigation.”
The ruling arrives amid heightened scrutiny of workplace diversity initiatives.
Following the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ended race-based affirmative action in higher education, 43% of HR leaders reported scaling back DEI programs due to legal risks, according to a 2024 Deloitte survey.
The Ames decision may amplify these concerns, as plaintiffs could challenge policies perceived as favoring minority groups.
However, civil rights organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, emphasized in an amicus brief that the ruling does not weaken protections for historically marginalized groups, noting that Title VII remains a vital tool for addressing discrimination against Black and LGBTQ+ workers.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which supported Ames’ position, reiterated that “there is no such thing as ‘reverse’ discrimination—only discrimination.”
With discrimination charges rising 8% in 2024 to 21,000, per the EEOC’s annual report, the agency is expected to ramp up enforcement actions in response to the ruling.
Implications for Employers and HR Professionals
The Ames decision places new demands on employers to ensure fair and transparent employment practices. Key steps for HR professionals include:
Robust Documentation: Maintain detailed records of hiring, promotion, and termination decisions, citing objective criteria like qualifications or performance metrics to defend against potential claims.
Manager Training: Educate leadership on Title VII’s uniform standards, emphasizing that bias against any group, including majority groups, is unlawful.
DEI Policy Reviews: Reassess diversity initiatives to ensure they prioritize inclusivity without appearing to favor specific groups. Skills-based hiring and universal benefits, such as expanded parental leave, can advance equity while minimizing legal risks.
Legal Collaboration: Work with employment attorneys to audit policies and prepare for potential litigation, particularly in circuits previously bound by the “background circumstances” rule.
A Texas-based tech company recently shifted its DEI strategy to focus on socioeconomic diversity and skills-based hiring, reducing legal exposure while maintaining inclusivity.
Conversely, a Chicago retailer faced a lawsuit from a white male employee alleging he was denied a promotion due to DEI goals, a case that may gain traction post-Ames.
Looking Ahead: Ames’ Case and Beyond
While the Supreme Court’s ruling removes a significant hurdle for Marlean Ames, her legal battle continues.
The lower courts will now reassess her claims under the standard McDonnell Douglas framework, evaluating whether DYS’s reasons for her demotion and denied promotion—likely centered on performance or organizational needs—were legitimate or a pretext for discrimination.
Proving intent remains a high bar in employment discrimination cases, often relying on circumstantial evidence like inconsistent application of policies or biased statements.
For the broader workforce, the Ames ruling underscores Title VII’s universal promise: no one should face discrimination based on protected characteristics.
As companies navigate economic pressures, hybrid work debates, and evolving DEI landscapes, HR leaders must balance compliance with fairness.
The decision also aligns with broader trends, as 67% of HR leaders plan to leverage technology-driven solutions like HR analytics to address workplace challenges in 2025, according to a PwC survey.
“This is a wake-up call for employers to get their house in order,” said Werner. “Fairness and transparency aren’t just legal requirements—they’re critical for building trust and retaining talent.”
As workplaces evolve, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services stands as a reminder that equality under the law applies to all.
The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.
Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?
Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.
Discover how companies are navigating the stress test of their...
Read MoreFacing layoffs? Discover how forward-thinking companies are implementing impactful HR...
Read MoreUS Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of employee Marlean...
Read MoreThe 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a global drop in...
Read MoreSubscribe to our newsletters!