Supreme Court Rules Unanimously in Favor of Ohio Woman Claiming Discrimination
Supreme Court rules unanimously that workplace discrimination claims by majority groups within protected classes do not require higher evidentiary standards under Title VII.
The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision on Thursday in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who alleged that she was denied job promotions based on her sexual orientation after her position was given to gay candidates. The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centered on whether employees belonging to majority groups—such as heterosexual individuals—should face a higher standard of proof when making discrimination claims under federal employment law.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not require majority group plaintiffs to demonstrate “background circumstances” suggesting that their employer is inclined to discriminate against the majority. Justice Jackson emphasized, "Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated," striking down a rule that had been applied by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ames, a heterosexual woman with over a decade of experience at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, contended that she was overlooked for promotion in 2019 in favor of a lesbian colleague, and soon thereafter, her own role was filled by a gay man. According to the filings, Ames presented evidence that she was qualified for the positions but was bypassed multiple times in favor of gay candidates—circumstances that, according to the Supreme Court, should be sufficient to proceed under Title VII like any other discrimination claim.
The ruling has significant implications for employment law, clarifying that all employees—regardless of their membership in a majority or minority group—are entitled to the same threshold requirements to bring a discrimination case. The previous "background circumstances" rule had demanded extra evidence from individuals in majority groups, a standard now deemed inconsistent with the text and purpose of Title VII.
Despite her victory before the high court, Ames’ discrimination claim is not fully resolved. The justices pointed out that the Ohio government had raised additional defenses to justify its personnel decisions. The Supreme Court specifically refrained from addressing those alternative arguments, remanding the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. "We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio’s remaining arguments on remand," Justice Jackson stated.
The outcome drew national attention, with advocacy groups lining up on both sides. Ames’ challenge received support from organizations including the U.S. Justice Department and advocacy groups seeking to advance legal protections for all workers. Meanwhile, civil rights organizations urged the Court to uphold standards favoring historically marginalized groups. The decision reaffirms that, under federal law, protections against workplace discrimination apply evenly, regardless of the majority or minority status of the plaintiff.
