On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, overruling the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule in employment discrimination cases. The background circumstances rule required members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim.

Case Background and Federal Framework

The petitioner, Ames, is a heterosexual woman who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (Department). She applied for a promotion at the Department but was rejected. Instead, a lesbian woman was placed in that role. Subsequently, Ames was demoted, and her prior role was filled by a gay man. Ames filed suit under Title VII, alleging the State of Ohio denied her a promotion and demoted her because of her sexual orientation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Ohio and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit held that Ames failed to show that there were background circumstances that supported the suspicion that the State of Ohio was “the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

The current federal framework for a court in evaluating disparate treatment claims that rely on circumstantial evidence includes a burden-shifting analysis. The plaintiff must make an initial showing that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive. If the plaintiff can make that initial showing, the burden then shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer offers such a non-discriminatory reason, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s stated reasons were really a pretext or cover-up for discrimination.

To establish a prima facie case for discrimination, a plaintiff must present evidence that:

• They applied for an available position.
• They were qualified for that position.
• They were rejected under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

According to the former standard, the Sixth Circuit and other courts required plaintiffs who were members of a majority group to present additional evidence of background circumstances that “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court rejected this heightened burden. In a 9-0 decision, the Court held that this additional proof requirement of “background circumstances” was directly at odds with both the text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent. The text of Title VII draws no distinction between majority and minority group plaintiffs as it pertains to claims of disparate treatment. Instead, the text focuses on barring discrimination against any individual because of a protected characteristic (race, sex, religion, or national origin), regardless of whether that protected characteristic places them in the majority or the minority. The Court went on to cite its previous case law, which reinforced its view of the text of Title VII.

Additionally, the Supreme Court found the State of Ohio’s argument, that the background circumstances rule was not actually a heightened standard, to be unconvincing.

Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, stated that he is even willing to consider whether the current burden-shifting framework continues to be a workable and useful evidentiary tool, likely signaling that Justice Thomas considers the “burden-shifting” analysis as confusing and not consistent with Title VII’s text.

Ames’ case will be sent back to the district court where she will have the opportunity to continue pursuit of her Title VII claims.

If you have any questions on how this ruling may impact your business or need assistance in defending against employment discrimination claims, please reach out to the authors.