No Higher Bar: SCOTUS Scraps Extra Hurdle for "Majority Group" Discrimination Claims
The Supreme Court issued a significant, unanimous ruling in June 2025 that reshaped the analysis for employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, particularly those brought by plaintiffs who are members of historical "majority groups" (e.g., white, male, heterosexual). The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, specifically addressed the "background circumstances" rule that had been adopted by several federal circuit courts. Under this rule, a plaintiff who was a member of a majority group—such as a straight woman alleging discrimination after a gay man was promoted over her—was previously required to meet a higher evidentiary standard than a minority plaintiff. They had to first prove that the employer was "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority" before their case could even proceed.
The Court's unanimous decision vacated the "background circumstances" rule, holding that it imposed an additional, unwarranted burden that is simply not supported by the text of Title VII. The justices emphasized that Title VII universally prohibits discrimination "against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Because the statute does not contain any language suggesting that a plaintiff's membership in a majority group requires a higher standard of proof, the Court ruled that all employees must be treated equally by the law when bringing a discrimination claim. This means the standard for establishing a case under Title VII is now the same for every plaintiff, regardless of their demographic status.
This 2025 Supreme Court decision resolves a split among the federal circuit courts and has immediate, practical implications for employers across the country. Employers operating in circuits that previously utilized the "background circumstances" rule must now prepare to defend claims from majority-group employees with the same diligence and standard of evidence as any other discrimination case. The focus of litigation will now squarely be on the traditional burden-shifting framework: Did the employee suffer an adverse action, and does the evidence show that the employer's decision was motivated by discriminatory intent? This ruling is particularly relevant amid increased legal scrutiny of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, as it makes it easier for employees who feel disadvantaged by race- or sex-conscious decisions to have their claims heard, as the initial, extra evidentiary hurdle has been eliminated.
