A new decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifies that all plaintiffs are on equal footing when proving their case in court. On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously decided Ames v. Ohio Dept of Youth Services holding that plaintiffs – regardless if they belong to a minority group or majority group – carry the same burden of proof in employment discrimination lawsuits brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A person belongs to a majority group when their protected characteristic, like race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, has not been historically disadvantaged.
Ames is a case about reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination is when someone from a majority group believes policies meant to help minority groups have harmed them instead. In her lawsuit, Ames (a heterosexual woman) claimed that her employer made certain employment decisions because of Ames’ sexual orientation. The employer allegedly promoted a lesbian woman over Ames and hired a gay man to fill Ames’ role after her demotion. To win her case, Ames had to prove that her sexual orientation motivated her employer’s decisions. This is typical in employment discrimination cases. But, in the Sixth Circuit (the jurisdiction where Ames filed her case), there was an additional rule: plaintiffs who were part of a majority group needed to provide “background circumstances” to succeed in court.
“Background circumstances” meant evidence showing that an employer was the kind of organization that would discriminate against majority groups. For example, a man who filed a sex discrimination lawsuit would need to prove: 1) his employer’s discriminatory intent; and 2) that his employer had biases against men. For Ames, this Sixth Circuit rule meant that in addition to proving discriminatory intent, she had to show that her employer had biases against heterosexual people. Whereas a bisexual woman who filed a similar lawsuit would not need to provide evidence of an employer’s bias against members of the LGBTQIA+ community. So, courts using the “background circumstances” rule held plaintiffs to different standards based on their status as belonging to a majority group.
The United States Supreme Court eliminated the “background circumstances” rule because its standard was contrary to Title VII. Justice Jackson points out in the unanimous decision that Title VII categorically prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees; the law does not require any heightened evidentiary standards based on someone’s protected characteristic.
Although this decision does not impact California employers, it reinforces principles of fairness and equal treatment under the law. Importantly, the Ninth Circuit had not applied the “background circumstances” rule and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code offer broader employee protections than Title VII.
For workplace investigators, Ames aligns with a core principle that investigations must be fair and without any preconceived notions about who can bring a discrimination complaint. Discrimination complaints brought by a person belonging to a majority group must be investigated under the same standard of review as complaints brought by a member of a minority group. Workplace investigators should not apply any heightened evidentiary standard or scrutinize evidence differently when a claim is brought by a member of a majority group. For example, an investigator should not assume that a sex discrimination complaint coming from a man would require heightened evidence as compared to a sex discrimination complaint brought by a woman. Who a person is, and their protected status, should not influence the investigative standard of evidentiary review.
By Jasmin E. Darron, Attorney, Consultant, Trainer, and Workplace Investigator
This information is for educational purposes only, is not intended to be legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship with you or Darron Law Corporation.
