Supreme Court Ruling Shifts the Landscape for Employers in Title VII Discrimination Cases

July 2025

Gabriel J. Kahn

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that discarded a well-established rule. This rule that was applied by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and other Circuits placed a heightened evidentiary burden on “majority group” plaintiffs bringing claims for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Ames, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. She alleged that the Ohio agency (1) passed her over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman, and (2) subsequently demoted her and hired a gay man to fill her former position.

The Ohio District Court analyzed Ames’s claims under the long-standing Supreme Court case, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), which establishes the traditional, three-step framework for evaluating discrimination claims based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. At the first step, the plaintiff bears the initial burden to support an inference of discriminatory motive (we’ll get to the other two steps soon). According to Sixth Circuit precedent, a “majority group” plaintiff, in this case a straight woman, must present more evidence to establish the first step of McDonnell Douglas than minority group plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit granted summary judgment to the Ohio agency because it determined that Ames did not meet the heightened evidentiary burden commonly referred to as the “background circumstances” rule.

In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such a heightened evidentiary burden known as the “background circumstances” rule “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or our longstanding precedents.” Justice Jackson further stated that “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” Instead, Title VII applies to “any individual.” The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for application of the proper standard.

Although the Ames ruling is fascinating for this ruling alone, there are other portions of the opinion that have been overlooked by the press. Specifically, in a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas openly invited (and frankly encouraged) legal challenges to the McDonnell Douglas framework, setting the stage for the Court to potentially eliminate the framework’s application as a summary judgment standard.

In his concurrence, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, Justice Thomas railed against the “background circumstances” rule and the McDonell Douglas framework. The McDonnell Douglas framework has three steps (I told you we would get to the other two): (1) the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant employer to articulate some legitimate business reason for the employee’s discharge; and (3) if the defendant can show a legitimate business reason, the plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reason offered by the employer was a pretext for discrimination.

Today, the McDonnell Douglas framework is used as the standard for summary judgment in Title VII cases. The framework provides a different standard for summary judgment than other types of cases and, according to Justice Thomas, unfairly raises the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs. Justice Thomas criticizes the framework’s application and reasons that the Judge-made standard from McDonnell Douglas “requires a plaintiff to prove too much at summary judgment.” It is also Justice Thomas’ opinion that the McDonnell Douglas framework is inconsistent with the text of Title VII. His argument appears to be aligned with Justice Jackson’s opinion in Ames regarding the text of Title VII not containing any sort of “background circumstances” rule. Similarly, Title VII does not contain any language regarding a burden-shifting framework for summary judgment standards.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch are plainly asking for the following issue to be presented to the Court: Did the employer discriminate against the employee? If the Court rules that the McDonnell Douglas framework is inappropriate for summary judgment application, employers should expect an uptick in litigation.

With this potentially substantial transformation to employment law, employers will need to adapt quickly to ensure they continue to make safe employment decisions. In this changing environment, employers should continue to thoroughly document employment and personnel decisions, update company policies, and consult with legal counsel when considering employment decisions regarding termination, disciplinary action, disability accommodation requests, medical leave requests, and more.

If you or your company need assistance in navigating these issues, BCM Law, P.C. is here to help.