In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the standard used by the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits, which held that majority group plaintiffs had to meet a heightened burden of proof to establish discrimination. In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed that regardless of affiliation, plaintiffs in Title VII litigation are subject to the same burden of proof.to establish discrimination.
Background
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth
Services, a heterosexual woman, Ames, sued the
Ohio Department of Youth Services alleging discrimination based on
sexual orientation and sex after being denied a promotion and
demoted.
The lower courts ruled against Ames, requiring her to show
"background circumstances" due to her being a member of a
majority group (heterosexual). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding
that Ames failed to show "background circumstances to support
the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who
discriminates against the majority." The court reasoned that
Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing
"in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie
case."
The Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII does not impose a heightened
evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs, holding that the
additional "background circumstances" requirement is
inconsistent with the text of Title VII and prior Supreme Court
case law.
Key Takeaways
Following this key clarification, employers, particularly in the
states principally affected by the ruling (Arkansas, Colorado,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming) and in the District of
Columbia, may want to review their policies and practices to ensure
that they are being applied equitably across all their employees,
regardless of protected class membership. Retraining of supervisors
also may be in order to ensure that employment decisions and
communications are based on qualifications and not protected
characteristics.
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.
