Supreme Court Decides Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, holding that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which imposes a heightened standard for plaintiffs in a majority group to establish a prima facie case under Title VII, is inconsistent with the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Supreme Court precedent construing the statute.

Ms. Ames, the plaintiff, was a heterosexual woman who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She alleged that she was denied a promotion and later demoted because of her sexual orientation, with a lesbian woman being hired for the promotion and a gay man for her previous role.

Both the District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her, applying a “background circumstances” rule. That rule required Ms. Ames, as a member of a majority group (heterosexuals), to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” in addition to other requirements to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII.

The Supreme Court held that the “background circumstances” rule is inconsistent with Title VII and its own precedents. The Court reasoned that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision prohibits discrimination against “any individual” based on protected characteristics, without distinguishing between majority and minority groups. It emphasized that Congress did not intend for courts to impose additional burdens on majority-group plaintiffs. The Court also cited previous rulings that made clear that “discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed” in Title VII. The Court remanded the case, instructing the lower courts to use the proper prima facie standard in assessing the plaintiff’s claims.

Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Gorsuch joined.