Employment law never sits still—and the Supreme Court just reminded us why HR needs to keep one eye on compliance at all times. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that quietly but significantly reshaped how discrimination claims work under federal law.
Eliminating the Background Circumstances Rule in Ames v. Ohio
Title VII and Prima Facie Standards
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, workers can sue their employer for discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, and other protected characteristics. Most courts use a burden-shifting framework in these cases, which allows plaintiffs to make a prima facie case of discrimination based on circumstantial evidence. That first step is intentionally light—what the courts have long called “not onerous.”
The Background Circumstances Rule
But in several circuits, including the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C., an extra evidentiary step was added when the plaintiff belonged to a majority group. This background circumstances rule required plaintiffs in that category to show evidence that the employer was the unusual kind that discriminated against majority-group members. Without that showing, the case couldn’t proceed—even if the plaintiff had otherwise met the standard Title VII criteria.
Justification for the Rule
Supporters of the rule viewed it as a necessary guardrail. Its aim wasn’t to dismiss valid claims, but to recognize that not all forms of discrimination carry the same historical or structural weight. It acknowledged that bias against dominant groups doesn’t operate in the same systemic way—and it tried, in its own way, to reflect that in legal procedure.
The Facts Behind Ames
Marlean Ames, a long-time employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleged that she was denied a promotion in favor of a lesbian colleague and was later demoted and replaced by a gay male colleague. Ames, who is heterosexual, believed that these decisions reflected bias based on her sexual orientation.
The district court and the Sixth Circuit both rejected her claim—not because they found the allegations untrue, but because she failed to satisfy the background circumstances rule. As a straight woman, she was required under Sixth Circuit precedent to show that the employer was likely to discriminate against someone like her. The courts ruled she didn’t meet that threshold.
The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Opinion
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson struck down the background circumstances requirement. Title VII protects any individual, and that means the legal threshold to bring a claim must be the same for everyone, regardless of race, sex, or orientation. The statute doesn’t allow for procedural distinctions based on group identity, even when those distinctions are designed to account for broader social context.
The Court also criticized the rigidity of the rule. By requiring specific types of evidence—statistical data, decisionmaker bias, or patterns of reverse discrimination—the Sixth Circuit created what Justice Jackson called an “inflexible formulation” that conflicts with the low bar intended at the early stages of a discrimination case.
What This Means for Employers and HR Professionals
The Supreme Court vacated the decision and sent the case back to be reconsidered under a uniform standard. Going forward, all plaintiffs will be held to the same burden when bringing discrimination claims under Title VII.
This doesn’t mean structural bias has disappeared. It doesn’t erase centuries of inequity or the reality that certain groups still face disproportionate harm.
But for employers, it means the compliance standard just became flatter: process consistency now matters more than ever. Every hiring, firing, promotion, and demotion decision should be documented, defensible, and aligned with clearly stated job-related criteria—because the legal test is the same, no matter who’s on the receiving end.
A Concurrence
While the Court unanimously struck down the background circumstances rule, Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence—joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch—signaled a much deeper critique of how employment discrimination law has been shaped. He called the rule a “paradigmatic example” of judge-made doctrine run amok: a rule with no basis in the text of Title VII that distorted statutory meaning, added burdens, and sowed confusion.
He didn’t stop there.
Thomas used his opinion to take aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, arguing that many employers are obsessed with DEI and that such initiatives have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority. Paired with an earlier decision from the Court which lowered the harm threshold for Title VII claims may embolden more lawsuits challenging DEI policies as unlawful.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is already responding. Acting Chair Andrea Lucas publicly urged employers to review their DEI programs for Title VII compliance following the Ames ruling.
Thomas also took direct aim at the McDonnell Douglas framework itself—the backbone of most discrimination litigation involving circumstantial evidence. He called it a judge-made standard with no basis in the text of Title VII, arguing it’s outdated, overly complex, and unfit for modern summary judgment practice.
While not binding, Thomas’s concurrence is a signal flare. He’s used opinions like this before to telegraph invitations—nudging conservative legal groups to bring the right case, with the right plaintiff, to dismantle doctrines he believes never should’ve existed. This one reads like a roadmap.
Actionable Steps for HR
The Ames decision changes the legal landscape, but your next steps don’t have to be complicated. Here’s what you need to do now:
Apply the same standard to every discrimination complaint
There’s no longer a higher bar for majority plaintiffs. Title VII protects individuals, not groups. Your complaint process and investigation standards should reflect that—across the board.
Review your DEI programs with fresh eyes
Inclusive workplaces still matter. But make sure your DEI efforts are job-related, legally defensible, and free of blanket demographic targets. Focus on equity in opportunity, not quotas.
Reinforce consistency in employment decisions
Hiring, promotions, demotions, terminations—document them all. Apply your criteria evenly. Train managers to follow policy, not instinct.
Stay current and get legal guidance
The legal standards around Title VII are shifting fast. Courts may revisit other foundational doctrines next. Talk to counsel. Reassess your policies.
Staying Ahead of Change
Ames v. Ohio is more than a procedural tweak—it’s a reminder that compliance is not a static checklist but a living, evolving obligation. Employers and HR teams must stay nimble, not just reactive. Title VII compliance now demands more consistency, more documentation, and more proactive alignment between your internal policies and federal standards.
When you decide to work with Bryan Driscoll, I help businesses make sense of legal shifts like this one—before they become legal headaches. Whether you’re updating your DEI framework, revisiting hiring policies, or training your team to handle complaints correctly, now is the time to get it right.
