The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services represents a clarification of the evidentiary framework required to establish a claim under Title VII at the summary judgment stage. The Court definitively rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which required plaintiffs from majority groups to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to establish prima facie discrimination cases. In the 6th,7th, 8th, 10th and D.C. Circuits the “background circumstances” rule meant that a plaintiff had to make a prima facie showing not only that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive but also that the “defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Court took the case to resolve the circuit split.
Summary of Facts
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2015, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate who identified as a lesbian woman. The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and later hired a gay man to fill that role. Ames filed a lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit held that Ames did not meet her prima facie burden because she failed to allege sufficient background circumstances as a plaintiff in a majority group.
Key Legal Holdings
- Title VII Applies Equally to All Plaintiffs. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Jackson, the Court categorically rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule. The Court emphasized that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” focusing instead on protecting “any individual” from discrimination based on protected characteristics. Critically, the Court held that Title VII does not impose heightened evidentiary burdens on majority-group plaintiffs at the prima facie stage. The judgment below was vacated and remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.
- McDonnell Douglas Framework Must Retain Contextual Flexibility. The Court reaffirmed that the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework functions as an organizational tool designed to bring parties “expeditiously and fairly to the ultimate question” of intentional discrimination.
In the first step of the three-step McDonnell Douglas inquiry, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by producing enough evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive. If the plaintiff employee clears that hurdle, then the burden shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If so, then the plaintiff must have a fair opportunity to show that the reason is just pretext for discrimination. The plaintiff may succeed under McDonnell Douglas by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer’s decision or by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.
The Court noted the ample Supreme Court precedent for the principle that the first step should not be onerous. Here, the Plaintiff applied for an available position for which she was qualified, and she was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.
The background circumstances test created an additional evidentiary hurdle that is not supported under Title VII text and further “subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case” which “ignores the Court’s instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard” under McDonnell Douglas.
Ames is Not the Anti-DEI Victory Some Claim
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames is far from the groundbreaking anti-DEI opinion that some advocates suggest.
- The Decision is Narrow in its Scope. The Court’s holding is remarkably limited in that it simply rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule that required majority-group plaintiffs to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. Critically, this decision does not: restrict DEI programs or diversity initiatives, create new barriers for discrimination claims, establish any broad anti-affirmative action precedent, or address the substantive merits of diversity and inclusion efforts
- Unanimous Nature Signals Narrow Correction. The fact that this was a unanimous decision suggests the Court was correcting a clear legal error rather than making a controversial policy statement about diversity programs.
The Impact on the Application and Viability of the McDonnell Douglas Framework
Several justices weighed in on the use of the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework in employment discrimination cases and none were resoundingly supportive of its typical application.
- Oral Argument. At oral argument, Justice Gorsuch directly challenged a foundational assumption by asking the appellant about whether he thinks McDonnell Douglas applies at the summary judgment stage given that the court has never held that it does. Later, Justice Gorsuch noted that the standard for summary judgment was whether there is a material dispute of fact about a question of discrimination and implied that this question could be decided without the use of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Finally, Justice Gorsuch criticized the rigid application of step 3 in the McDonnell Douglas framework. He emphasized that the Court has never held that the plaintiff must prove the employer’s reason is pretextual. Justice Kavanaugh suggested the McDonnell Douglas framework is irrelevant at summary judgment because “once the employer stated a reason, the whole thing kind of drops out.”
- Majority Opinion. In rejecting the “background circumstances” rule, the Court notes that the rule “ignores our instruction to avoid inflexible applications of McDonnell Douglas’s first prong. This Court has repeatedly explained that the ‘precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and were never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.”
- Concurrent Opinion. Justice Thomas’ second half of his concurring opinion is an extensive critique of the McDonnell Douglas framework. He argues that it is incompatible with Rule 56, fails to encompass various ways to prove claims, requires artificial distinctions between direct and circumstantial evidence, and has created “outsized judicial confusion.” Thomas argues that this persistent confusion suggests “the framework is unworkable” and demonstrates how “atextual, judge-created legal rules have a tendency to generate complexity, confusion, and erroneous results.” Finally, in what should be considered a tantalizing invitation to the plaintiff’s bar, Justice Thomas asserts that “in an appropriate case, this Court should consider whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is an appropriate tool to evaluate Title VII claims at summary judgment.”
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of the “background circumstances” rule in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services represents an important clarification that is largely considered the right decision, it constitutes a relatively narrow holding limited to procedural equality under Title VII. The Court simply held that Title VII “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” focusing instead on protecting “any individual” from discrimination.
The real significant of Ames may lie not in its holding but in its broader implications for employment discrimination jurisprudence. The extensive critique of the McDonnell Douglas framework that permeates the decision, particularly Justice Thomas’s concurrence and the pointed questioning during oral arguments—foreshadows potentially transformative changes that could fundamentally reshape how employment discrimination cases are litigated.
About The Noble Law Firm
The Noble Law is a women-owned employment law firm with offices in North Carolina and South Carolina, founded by Laura Noble in 2009. Specializing in wrongful termination, workplace harassment, workplace retaliation, workplace mediation, and neutral third-party investigations, the firm is committed to leveling the playing field for employees. Their focus is on delivering positive outcomes with empathy and integrity, while also driving societal change in employment law.
The firm emphasizes diversity, collaboration, and innovation, fostering a balanced work environment that values the personal lives of its staff. With a strong commitment to technology and efficiency, The Noble Law provides personalized attention to a select group of clients, handling cases involving harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and more. The team’s extensive litigation experience allows them to deliver thorough and assertive representation.
