In an opinion delivered on June 3, 2025, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split among federal courts regarding the validity of the "background circumstances rule" – a rule which requires majority-group plaintiffs to meet a different burden of proof in Title VII discrimination claims than plaintiffs who belong to minority groups.The Court held that the "background circumstances rule" is inconsistent with the language of Title VII and therefore should not be used in assessing claims of reverse discrimination in employment.
The Background Circumstances Rule for Reverse Discrimination Claims
Title VII prohibits employers from intentionally discriminating against their employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In a previous case, the court laid out a three-step framework that courts should use when assessing employment discrimination claims. The first step requires the plaintiff (the employee) to provide enough evidence to support "an inference of discriminatory motive" by the defendant (the employer). If the plaintiff cannot meet this evidentiary burden in reverse discrimination claims, they will not be able to move on to step two and their case will be over. As Justice Jackson recognized in her opinion, "[f]or most plaintiffs, . . .the first step is 'not onerous.'"
However, under the "background circumstances rule," plaintiffs belonging to a majority group have an additional burden at step one that plaintiffs belonging to minority groups do not have. Majority-group plaintiffs must establish "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." If a majority-group plaintiff cannot prove this additional requirement, their case is over.
Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services
In the case at hand, Plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed reverse discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after being passed over for a promotion in favor of an LBTQ co-worker and then demoted when her company hired a LGBTQ individual to put in her position, had her case dismissed despite the Sixth Circuit recognizing that she established a prima facie case of discrimination under step one of the framework. Her case was dismissed because she failed to provide the requisite background circumstances that she was required to show as a member of the majority.
Circuit Courts Split Over Background Circumstances Requirement
As the circuit courts are split on whether majority-group plaintiffs should be subjected to different evidentiary standards than minority-group plaintiffs, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case to settle the dispute, ultimately rejecting the application of the "background circumstances rule."
In the opinion, the court explained in its reasoning that the hard rule imposed on majority-group litigants goes against the plain language of Title VII. Justice Jackson stated that Title VII "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." Instead, it focuses on protecting theindividual"without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group." As such, courts should not impose "special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."
What Does This Ruling Mean For Employers?
In light of this Supreme Court decision, employers are likely to see an increase in employment reverse discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups who feel they have been wronged. Employers should continue to follow all federal and local laws pertaining to equal employment and may want to review their employment policies and training to ensure compliance. When facing a discrimination claim, having solid documentation and records in place can be a strong first line of defense for businesses.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.