On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs bringing claims for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the Court held that such plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split and reaffirmed that Title VII’s protections apply uniformly to “any individual,” regardless of demographic status.
Background: Sixth Circuit’s “Background Circumstances” Rule
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a promotion and demoted, with her previous position filled by a gay man. She alleged that these adverse employment actions were taken because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.
Title VII makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, or religion -- including sexual orientation. Because Ames did not have direct proof of discrimination, the courts applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, a legal test used to evaluate claims based on circumstantial evidence.
Both the district...
Campbell’s, a renowned canned soup brand, recently terminated a high-ranking executive following the emergence of a recording in which he made racially insensitive statements and alleged that the ...