In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether an additional evidentiary burden can be applied to claim of discrimination made by a member of a majority group. Plaintiff, Marlene Ames (the Plaintiff), a heterosexual female, claimed she was qualified but was not selected for a role which was ultimately filled with a lesbian candidate. She was subsequently removed from her position and demoted. Defendant, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, hired a gay man to fill the role left vacant after her demotion. The Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII claiming she was denied promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
The District Court found that because the Plaintiff was from a majority group (heterosexuals), she was required to provide “background circumstances to support the “suspicion” the Defendant is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” in order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory motive. The Court dismissed her claims, finding she had not met her burden to establish a prima facie case. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
In discussing Title VII text and the McDonnell-Douglas framework, which requires a showing that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, is qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and was treated differently than members outside their class, the US Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with the lower courts.
The Court found the “background circumstances” rule required a heightened evidentiary standard for members of a majority group that did not align with Title VII or Supreme Court precedent. The rule, which required the Plaintiff to provide evidence that either (1) a member of a minority group made the employment decision, or (2) statistical evidence established a pattern of discrimination, imposed a different and higher burden on majority group plaintiffs.
The Court explained further that Title VII protects individuals, not groups, from disparate treatment and does not allow courts to impose a higher burden based on an individual’s membership in a majority group. In addition, the Court found the rule’s specific evidentiary requirements were “inflexible” and contrary to the evidentiary requirements of the McDonnell-Douglas framework.
This case clarifies that Title VII protections apply to disparate treatment of individuals because of their membership in a protected class, regardless of whether they are also a member of a “majority” group. Employers should be aware of the impact this decision may have on hiring and firing decisions in the future. If you have questions about your organization’s obligations under Title VII, call Wiley Reber Law for advice that works.