Author/contributor
Richard Reice
Partner
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services reaffirms a simple but important principle: Title VII protects “any individual” against discrimination based on a protected trait, without imposing extra hurdles on majority‐group plaintiffs.
In reversing the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” requirement, the Court clarified that employees – regardless of demographic status – must satisfy the same prima facie elements under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.
For years, employment counsel has cautioned against the phrase “reverse discrimination.” Today’s ruling confirms why. Title VII’s text does not distinguish between majority and minority groups when defining unlawful discrimination. The Sixth Circuit erred by adding an extra element of proof: demanding that a straight – rather than LGBTQ+ – plaintiff demonstrate an employer’s history of discriminating against straight employees before proceeding.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained, nothing in Title VII’s language “suggests that majority‐group plaintiffs face a heightened burden.” All plaintiffs must show they: (1) belong to a protected class, (2) are qualified, (3) suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) have evidence permitting an inference of discrimination.
Why the Concurring Opinion Matters
While the majority’s rejection of “background circumstances” restores uniformity to Title VII, the concurring opinion from Justice Thomas – joined by Justice Gorsuch is worth taking note of. Both justices argue that the fifty year evidentiary framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas “creates too high a burden for plaintiffs,” and he invites future litigants to seek Supreme Court review of McDonnell Douglas’s role at summary judgment. Despite these rather isolated views, McDonnell Douglas remains the bedrock for evaluating discrimination claims at trial.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
- Drop “Reverse Discrimination” in Day-to-Day Language
Title VII extends protection against discrimination “because of sex” or “race,” covering LGBTQ+ status and all other protected characteristics. Employers should understand that any adverse action – promotion, demotion, or termination – allegedly motivated by an employee’s protected status (majority or minority) demands the same legal standard.
- Maintain Objective Promotion and Compensation Criteria
To reduce risk, base promotion or demotion decisions on quantifiable, job-related factors: performance scores, years of service, certifications attained. A demotion with a pay cut – as Ames experienced – constitutes an adverse employment action and must be supported by clear, well‐documented business reasoning. As you have likely heard your employment counsel tell you a hundred times, document each step: job postings, interview notes, evaluation scores, and final approvals. If an employee argues discrimination, these records will demonstrate neutral decision-making.
- Update Manager Training on Title VII’s Equal-Burden Principle
Supervisors and HR partners should be reminded that “any individual” can bring a Title VII claim. Emphasize that a straight or white employee need not allege an employer’s past mistreatment of straight or white workers – mere disparate treatment is sufficient to establish the fourth McDonnell Douglas element.
Final Thoughts
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services dispels the notion that majority‐group plaintiffs face extra obstacles under Title VII. The unanimous decision ensures that all employees – straight or LGBTQ+, male or female – stand on equal footing when alleging discrimination. Meanwhile, the concurring invitation to revisit McDonnell Douglas places employers on notice: the framework guiding discrimination claims may evolve. For now, the rule is clear: evaluate every Title VII claim under a uniform standard and document decisions with care.
For guidance on updating your promotion practices or any Title VII concern, reach out to employment and litigation partner, Richard Reice.