The Sophisticated Employer Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, recently held that the “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court’s own precedents. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs. 605 U.S. ___ (2025); No. 23-1039, slip op. at 1, 4-9 (U.S. June 3, 2025)

What is the prima facie case and the “background circumstances” rule?

In McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, the Supreme Court established an evidentiary framework under which Title VII disparate treatment claims that rest on circumstantial evidence are evaluated.

The first step of the burden-shifting framework requires a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case. A plaintiff in an employment discrimination case may satisfy this initial burden by presenting evidence that he or she applied for an available position for which he or she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

However, several federal appellate courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, placed an additional evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in establishing a prima facie case. These claims, often colloquially referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims, were distinguished by the fact they were brought by individuals of a majority-group “traditionally favored in society.”

Therefore, as part of the prima facie case in a reverse discrimination Title VII case, the plaintiff was required to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing Arendale v. City of Memphis, 419 F.3d 587, 603 (6th Cir. 2008)).

Plaintiffs could make this showing by providing evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence, by showing the employer’s pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.

Supreme Court abolishes the “Background Circumstances” requirement, finding it is inconsistent with Title VII and prior Supreme Court precedent construing the statute.

With the above requirements in mind, in Ames, the plaintiff (a heterosexual woman) sought a promotion for a management position within the agency. However, the agency ultimately hired a different candidate (a lesbian woman) to fill the role. The federal trial court found that Ames had failed to establish a prima facie case as she had not shown background circumstances to support the suspicion that defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. The appellate court for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court first focused on the text of Title VII, finding that it makes no distinctions between majority-group or minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the language of the statute establishes the same protections for every individual and Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements for majority-group plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court found that “background circumstances” rule imposed an inflexible standard upon majority-group plaintiffs in establishing a prima facie case. This standard contradicts prior Supreme Court instruction to lower courts that the precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and were never intended to be rigid, mechanized or ritualistic.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacate the appellate court’s opinion and remanded the case to the federal trial court for it to apply the proper prima facie standard.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s holding in Ames removes a hurdle for reverse discrimination plaintiffs and may increase the likelihood their claims survive a motion for summary judgment. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, authored a concurring opinion, in which they question whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is a suitable tool for evaluating Title VII claims at the summary judgment stage. 

Whether or not the framework should be applied at the summary judgment stage is a question for another day. The application of the burden-shifting framework during litigation remains a complex and frequently changing process.

Employers should contact their employment attorneys for further guidance and information on how this opinion may impact existing or future cases involving Title VII reverse discrimination claims.