Marlean A. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services., 2025 WL 1583264 (U.S. Supreme Ct. 2025)
BACKGROUND:
Marlean Ames (“Plaintiff”), a heterosexual woman, was an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“the Department”). Ames was hired by the Department in 2004 for a secretarial position but was later promoted to Program Administrator. While in that position, Plaintiff interviewed for a management position in the Office of Quality and Improvement. The managerial position was given to another candidate who identified as a lesbian. Plaintiff was later demoted from Program Administrator back to a secretarial position. The Department then filled her Program Administrator position with an employee who identified as a gay man.
Plaintiff subsequently filed this suit against the Department alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
DISCUSSION:
By way of brief background, in the seminal Supreme Court case, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the Supreme Court of the United States created a three-step burden-shifting framework designed to draw out the necessary evidence in employment-discrimination claims (“McDonnell Douglas framework”). 411 U.S. 792 (1973) Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, if a plaintiff can successfully establish a prima facie case by proving: (1) “he/she belongs to a protected class;” (2) “he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action;” (3) “he/she was qualified to perform the job in question;” and (4) “his/her employer treated ‘similarly situated’ employees outside her class more favorably,” the plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of intentional discrimination. The defendant then has the burden of articulating a valid, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Once the defendant provides a valid, non-discriminatory reason, the presumption is rebutted, and the plaintiff must show not only that the employer’s justification was pretextual but that the real reason for the adverse employment action was discrimination.
Here, when reviewing Plaintiff’s discrimination claim, the District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals assessed Plaintiff’s claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework but went on to impose an additional requirement on Plaintiff, in that the employee must prove “background circumstances” to support the suspicion that the Employer “is the unusual employer who discriminates against members of the majority group.” This evidence could include evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at-issue or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority. Due to the nature of this additional requirement, it only applies to members of the majority group. The District Court of the Southern District of Ohio and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals both granted summary judgment to the Department on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination, as she did not present evidence of background circumstances to support the suspicion that the Employer “is the unusual employer who discriminates against members of the majority group.” Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Sixth Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court highlighted that Title VII makes no distinction between minority and majority group. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that creating a higher evidentiary standard and therefore requiring a higher burden of proof for individuals who are members of a majority group when trying to establish their prima facie case of discrimination is improper. The Court went on to vacate and remand the case to determine if Plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination and satisfied the remaining factors under the McDonald Douglass framework.
PRACTICAL ADVICE:
By eliminating the “background circumstances” requirement, the bar has been significantly lowered for majority-group employees to bring discrimination claims against their employers, which almost certainly will result in an increase in reverse discrimination claims. Accordingly, School Districts should take steps to ensure that anti-discrimination practices are applied consistently and neutrally to all employees, regardless of whether an employee falls in a minority or majority group.
