Same Standard Applies for All Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs
Last week, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Court clarified that the same evidentiary standard applies for all plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision invalidated a practice by some courts of placing an additional burden on plaintiffs belonging to majority groups to show “background circumstances” supporting the conclusion that the defendant employer is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Ames interviewed for a management position in the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the “Department”). A few days after her interview, she was removed from her role as program administrator and accepted a demotion to a secretarial position, which included a significant pay cut. The Department hired a gay man to fill the program administrator role that, following Ames’ demotion, was now vacant. Ames sued the Department under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and was demoted because of her sexual orientation. The lower court ruled in favor of the Department because Ames, as a member of a majority group, failed to meet the additional requirement of showing “background circumstances” supporting the suspicion that the Department discriminated against the majority.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this additional requirement. The Court noted that Title VII “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” Instead, Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual on the basis of that individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To state a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII, a member of a majority group does not have to meet an additional burden.
What this means for employers: this case creates a national standard for members of majority groups to bring employment discrimination lawsuits and lowers the evidentiary burden they must meet. As a result, there may be an increase in the number of lawsuits brought by members of majority groups, including lawsuits challenging DEI initiatives as discriminatory. It also serves as a reminder to all employers that they cannot consider race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in making employment decisions.
(Kyle Davis practices in the areas of litigation, employment law, and civil rights and administrative law. He is a member of the firm’s Advocacy Group and Corporate Practice Group.)