On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments that could change how employment discrimination claims work for people in majority groups. In Ames v. Department of Ohio Youth Services, an Ohio woman whose “reverse discrimination” claim was dismissed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on her case and clear up a circuit split. Here’s what’s happening and why it matters.
What is this case about?
Marlean Ames claims that she was not hired for a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Her lawsuit was dismissed by the 6th Circuit which found that Ames could not meet an additional test –– the background circumstances rule –– sometimes used when the employee claiming discrimination is part of a majority group.
Ames believes the lower court’s ruling should be overturned because the background circumstances rule puts plaintiffs in majority groups at a disadvantage. Her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the Department), believes overturning the case would be unworkable.
Federal circuit courts disagree on the application of the background circumstances rule that the lower court applied to Ames’s case. Ames is asking the Supreme Court to address this circuit split and decide whether majority-group plaintiffs must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
What is the basis of Ames’s “reverse discrimination” claim?
According to her brief, in 2004, Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary. She was promoted to the role of program administrator in 2014. Her supervisor in this role, a gay woman, gave her good reviews. In 2019, Ames applied for a new position of bureau chief but did not get it. Following this, higher-ups at the Department, both straight, decided to remove from her program administrator job and offered to return Ames to her previous job, with a pay cut. Ames decided to return to her previous job and stay with the Department.
Following this, a gay man was hired to fill the program administrator job that Ames had been removed from. And soon after, a gay woman was hired for the role of bureau chief that Ames had unsuccessfully applied for.
In response, Ames sued the Department, alleging they had discriminated against her based on sex and sexual orientation under federal employment law.
What is the law at issue?
Ames brought her employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), a federal employment law that prohibits discrimination based on sex and other protected characteristics such as race, religion, and national origin. When employees believe they have been discriminated against by their employers, they can pursue legal action under Title VII.
To determine whether an employer has violated Title VII, courts typically use a legal framework called McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting. To pass the first step of this framework, employee-plaintiffs must show that: they are a member of a particular protected group, that they were eligible for certain programs (like a promotion or a raise) but were not given it, and that “an individual who was similarly situated with respect to qualifications, but was not in the plaintiff’s protected group was given better treatment.”
But some federal courts require another step, in addition to the burden-shifting framework: the “background circumstances rule.” Under this rule, plaintiffs belonging to majority groups must prove that the employer “is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
What is the procedural background of the case?
Ames first brought her lawsuit in the Southern District Court of Ohio which held that Ames could not continue with her case because she could not meet the background circumstances rule. Ames appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss Ames’s sexual orientation discrimination claim. The 6th Circuit found that Ames’s discrimination case was “easy to make” because sexual orientation is a protected class, she was demoted from her program administrator position and replaced with a gay man, and she was passed over for the Bureau Chief position that then went to a gay woman.
However, the 6th Circuit held that Ames’s “easy” case fell apart since she could not meet the background circumstances rule. Plaintiffs usually meet this rule by showing “that a member of the relevant minority (here, gay people) made the employment decision at issue” or by bringing “statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group.” Since the decision to demote Ames was made by straight supervisors and the only evidence of discrimination she can point to is her own, the 6th Circuit dismissed her claims.
What is the Circuit split here?
The background circumstances rule is used by some federal circuit courts, but not all, resulting in a circuit split. Several circuits require this heightened requirement for majority-group plaintiffs bringing Title VII claims, including the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, while other circuits do not.
What are the parties arguing?
Ames argues that she “was on the wrong side of [the circuit] split.” According to Ames, the background circumstances rule, which unraveled her lawsuit, conflicts with the text of Title VII, unfairly holds a subset of plaintiffs to a higher standard than others, goes against the practices of the federal government, and is difficult for courts to apply.
The Biden administration filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Ames’s position, with former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar agreeing that the background circumstances requirement is not supported by the text of Title VII.
The Ohio Department of Youth Services, which Ames is attempting to sue, argues that Supreme Court precedent supports the background circumstances test which is just a form of analysis, not an unfair burden on majority-member plaintiffs. The Department argues that if cases like Ames’s were not subjected to this background circumstances requirement, the floodgates would be opened and courts would be overwhelmed by employment discrimination claims.
What is at stake in this case?
With the Supreme Court’s recent decision on affirmative action in college admissions and President Trump’s continual dismantling of DEI efforts, the outcome of Ames’ reverse discrimination case is highly relevant. Amid broader national discussions about workplace diversity and discrimination policies, the Court’s decision could affect how discrimination cases are handled nationwide.
