Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

Prior to June 5, 2025, many federal courts required a plaintiff pursuing a “reverse discrimination” claim – a claim that an employer discriminated against a person in a majority group, such heterosexuals or Caucasians – had an additional burden of proof: establishing “background circumstances” or “something fishy” to suggest the employer would discriminate against the majority group. On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the “background circumstances” requirement and ruled employees in a majority-group do not have a higher evidentiary standard when bringing discrimination claims. In so doing, the Court reversed a lower court dismissal of a woman’s lawsuit alleging she was discriminated against because she is heterosexual and ultimately settled a circuit split in the application of the “background circumstances” test.

core/paragraph

core/heading

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for and interviewed for a promotion. The Department hired another candidate who was a lesbian woman. Subsequently, the Department demoted Ames, resulting in a significant pay cut, and hired a gay man to fill her prior role.

Ames filed a lawsuit against the Department, alleging employment discrimination based on her sexual orientation under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department, finding that Ames failed to establish “background circumstances” suggesting that the Department discriminated against members of a majority group. Without that evidence, the district court held that plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (like Ames) cannot establish their evidentiary burden on discrimination claims.  Ames appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling under the background circumstances test.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the lowers courts. The Court held “the ‘background circumstances’ rule cannot be squared with the text of Title VII.” Instead, the Court reiterated that “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” Thus, Title VII does not require majority group member employees to show additional background circumstances to pursue discrimination claims.

In making it decision, the Court looked to the clear text of Title VII, which makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) (emphasis added). By establishing protections for “any individual”, regardless of majority or minority group membership, the Court reasoned the law does not contain special requirements for majority groups.

Further, the Court reiterated that prima facie standard, established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, is flexible and its requirements vary depending on the context of any case. Justice Jackson, writing for the majority, explained the “background circumstances” rule disregards this finding by uniformly applying a higher standard to those in majority groups. As such, the Court held that the “background circumstances” rule, as applied by the DC Circuit, 6th Circuit, 7th Circuit, 8th Circuit, and 10th Circuit, is an impermissible heightened evidentiary standard under Title VII and Court precedent.

In a separate concurrence, Justice Thomas highlighted “the problems that arise when judges create textual legal rules and frameworks.” He asserted that the background circumstances rule serves as an example of “how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text.”  Justice Thomas further questioned whether the McDonnell-Douglas framework is appropriate for claims arising under Title VII. He signaled that in an appropriate case, the Court should consider whether the McDonnell-Douglas framework is the correct tool to evaluate Title VII claims on summary judgment.

The Supreme Court’s decision signals that all disparate treatment discrimination claims arising under Title VII – even those claims alleging discrimination against a majority group – are evaluated under the same evidentiary standard. The decision aligns with guidance issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) earlier this year in which the agency explains what constitutes illegal DEI programs. Consistent with the Court’s decision, the EEOC believes majority-group employees must meet the same evidentiary standard as minority-group employees when bringing discrimination claims under Title VII.

The decision may make it easier for majority-group employees to succeed when bringing discrimination claims arising under Title VII. Given the EEOC’s renewed focus on DEI programs in the workplace, now may be the time for employers to review internal policies and practices to ensure consistent treatment between majority and minority groups.

Close-up view of large classical stone columns with detailed bases.

The Supreme Court Makes it Easier to Pursue Reverse Discrimination Claims

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Five Financial Insights Growing Organizations Should Be Thinking About Right Now

One Word in a Signature Block Could Make You Personally Liable

What Does Outside General Counsel Actually Mean?