USA – TEXAS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sydnie Shimkus, Bell Nunnally & Martin
The United States Supreme Court and other courts accept reverse discrimination claims Ruling On 5 June 2025, the US Supreme Court, in a unani - mous decision ( Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Ser - vices No 23-1039), found that majority-group plain - tiffs in reverse discrimination cases need not meet the additional background circumstances test, resolving a circuit split on the issue. Background The plaintiff in the case, Marlean Ames, is a heter - osexual woman and employee of the Ohio Depart - ment of Youth Services who had worked in a variety of positions for the department for over 20 years. In 2019, Ames applied for a newly created management position in the department’s Office of Quality and Improvement. Ames alleged that she was qualified for the position and had proven herself as such dur - ing her lengthy tenure with the organisation. Despite these factors, she asserted the department hired another candidate, a lesbian woman, to fill the role. Ames said that a few days after she interviewed for the position, her supervisors removed her from her role in programme administration and demoted her to executive secretary – a role Ames held when she first joined the department in 2004. Ames alleged her previous role was given to a gay male and filed suit for discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexual orientation. Under Title VII, a plaintiff may claim that their employ - er acted with “discriminatory motive” when it denies them a hiring opportunity, whether it be a new job position, promotion or compensation decision. That is the case in the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs federal cases in Texas. However, in the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Ohio), the standard previously required that members of a majority group such as heterosexuals also present evidence of “background circumstances” showing the employer historically discriminates against members of majority groups. The Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and DC Circuits also previously applied the background circumstances test. Without meeting the background circumstances standard, Title VII plaintiffs who were members of majority groups could have their cases dismissed in the pleading stage. Applying this stand -
ard, the Sixth Circuit found that Ames met her burden of proof under the typical Title VII standard, but she, as a straight woman, had not met the heightened bur - den of background circumstances necessary to show that her employer historically discriminated against members of majority groups; therefore, her discrimi - nation case failed. The US Supreme Court’s decision therefore focused on whether the background circum - stances test is permissible under Title VII. In its decision, the Supreme Court first found that Ames had satisfied the requirements of McDonnel Douglas v Green , which is longstanding Title VII case law requiring that a discrimination plaintiff present evi - dence that “she applied for an available position for which she was qualified but was rejected under cir - cumstances which give rise to an inference of unlaw - ful discrimination”. The court then looked at the text of Title VII and found that the Sixth Circuit’s back - ground circumstances test was inconsistent with Title VII’s purposes. In its analysis, the justices noted that Title VII makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensa - tion, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”. To the court, it was impactful that the act focuses on individuals, not groups, noting, “that focus is anything but academic”. The court also highlighted prior Supreme Court deci - sions such as Griggs v Duke Power Co. and McDonald v Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. , which ruled that Title VII prohibits discrimination against both minor - ity and majority groups. Consistent with its previous rulings, the court concluded that “[o]ur case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a major - ity group”. The court struck down the Sixth Circuit’s background circumstances test, reasoning, “the back - ground circumstances rule disregards this admonition by uniformly subjecting all majority group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case”.
797 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook