Petitioner Marlean Ames argued some courts of appeals unfairly add an extra legal burden in employment discrimination cases.

Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 25, 2024. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

By Matthew Vadum

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 5 ruled unanimously in favor of an Ohio woman who alleged that the state of Ohio demoted her because she is heterosexual.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the court’s 9–0 opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.

The new ruling may make it easier for members of non-minority groups to demonstrate employment discrimination in lawsuits.

Jackson wrote that the nation’s highest court had to resolve whether a plaintiff who belongs to “a majority group must also show ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,’” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit previously ruled.

“We hold that this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent” with the text of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act or with the Supreme Court’s precedents interpreting that law, she wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s new ruling, the federal courts of appeals were split on the need to demonstrate background circumstances in employment discrimination cases.

Related Stories

Supreme Court Leans in Favor of Ohio State Employee Claiming Demotion Because She’s Straight

2/27/2025

 

Judge Strikes Down Biden-Era Employment Discrimination Guidance on Gender Identity

5/17/2025

 

Petitioner Marlean Ames, a straight woman, has been employed at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. She started off as an executive secretary and, after repeated promotions, became a program administrator, according to the petition filed in March 2024.

In 2017, she began reporting to a woman who identifies as homosexual. She applied to be promoted to the position of bureau chief of quality but did not receive the promotion. The candidate who was ultimately hired had not sought the position and allegedly “lacked the minimum qualifications” for it. The department “[circumvented] its own internal procedures” to promote the candidate, the petition states.

Subsequently, the department took the program administrator position away from Ames and allowed her to choose between termination or demotion. The department then installed a gay man as program administrator, even though he was not qualified, according to the petition.

When the case went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) and ruled that “Ames’s prima facie case” of discrimination based on sexual orientation was “easy to make,” according to the petition.

The McDonnell Douglas decision held that before a plaintiff may move forward with an employment discrimination claim, he first must show that he has at least a prima facie case.

Prima facie means that a claim that is before a court has merit when accepted at face value and would be legally sufficient to support a case unless disproved later.

Jackson wrote that the Sixth Circuit held that because Ames is straight she had to demonstrate background circumstances in addition to making the usual showings sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Congress established protections for individuals without respect to whether they belong to a majority or a minority group, Jackson wrote.

“Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” she wrote.

Demonstrating discrimination under Title VII “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” The background circumstances rule runs afoul of that principle, Jackson wrote.

The Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Sixth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for reconsideration.

If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism

As an independent media without a corporate or billionaire backer, The Epoch Times continues to operate thanks to readers like you.

If you're committed to supporting independent journalism, please consider subscribing—our limited-time introductory offer is just $1 per week.

Subscribe

Limited time offer. Cancel anytime.