BREAKING: SCOTUS overrules higher standard for majority group asserting bias claims

Today the U.S. Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs do not have to show special “background circumstances” to support a Title VII discrimination claim.

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the court-created doctrine that members of a majority group must satisfy a higher evidentiary standard when asserting a Title VII claim. As predicted, the Court held that the background circumstances rule used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was unsupported by the text of Title VII. 

Background

Marlean Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ms. Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation arising out of the Department’s decisions to select a gay employee for a promotion and to demote her. Ms. Ames asserted a claim for sexual orientation “reverse discrimination,” arguing that she was discriminated against because she is not gay.

Lower court decisions

Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit dismissed Ms. Ames’ discrimination claims because she had not shown background circumstances to support the suspicion that her employer was the unusual employer that discriminates against a majority group, i.e., heterosexuals.

The Supreme Court’s holding

The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and held that the background circumstances test is not an appropriate standard.      

The Court explained that Title VII does not draw distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Title VII makes it unlawful to “fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or other discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” (Emphasis added). Based on the plain text of the statute, the Court ruled that the law provides the “same protections for every ‘individual’ -- without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group. . . .” The Court reinforced the principle 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 majority group.” For that reason, the Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision, and Ms. Ames will have another chance to pursue her claims.

Takeaways

As a practical matter, employers should continue to ensure they treat employees without regard to a protected characteristic. If an employer treats majority-group employees differently than minority-group employees, the employer may be subject to a discrimination suit -- just as if the employer treats minority-group employees differently than majority-group employees.

While this decision theoretically makes it easier for an employee to assert a prima facie case of “reverse” discrimination, not all jurisdictions applied the background circumstances test. And a change in evidentiary standards alone is not likely to lead to a dramatic surge in “reverse” discrimination claims.