Content Highlights
On June 5, 2025, the Court struck down a burdensome rule that made proving discrimination harder for employees in majority classes. In this article, we explain the Court’s ruling and how it affects your working conditions and career mobility.
At Gardner Employment Law, we take pride in staying up to date on the law affecting the workplace. Read more to learn about how to prove discrimination at work.
How did the US Supreme Court Clarify How to Prove Discrimination?
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not impose a higher standard for plaintiffs who are members of majority groups. The standard which the Sixth Circuit and other appellate court had applied required consideration of the “background circumstances” of the plaintiff.
The “background circumstances” rule required that if the the plaintiff were a member of a majority class, here a heterosexual woman, the plaintiff had to offer additional evidence to show that her circumstances made discrimination plausible. The Supreme Court held that this requirement is inconsistent with the plain language of Title VII, the statute which governs decisions about discrimination in employment. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination “because of” race, sex, religion, or national origin, without qualification. The Ames decision reinforced decades old precedent and aligned with the reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County, where the Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful sex-based discrimination under Title VII.
How Does the Ames Ruling Affect Executives and Physicians?
For executives and physicians, the Ames ruling confirms that all employees have an equal path to pursue discrimination claims, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. This legal clarity matters, especially in high-stakes roles where bias often hides behind “neutral” vague explanations like team compatibility or restructuring. We illustrated this situation in our recent article, “Do Physicians Face Discrimination at Work?”
This heightened burden had become a significant obstacle for employees like Ms. Ames. Unlike minority plaintiffs, majority-status employees, such as white males or heterosexual workers, were required to provide extra proof that their group could be discriminated against. SCOTUS leveled the playing field. Just because you are a white male or a heterosexual female, you do not have to offer more evidence to prove discrimination than any other employee.
Discrimination arises in subtle ways, especially for professionals in high-responsibility roles. Whether you are negotiating an exit, facing a wrongful termination, or seeking to move to a competitor, you want equal consideration of your qualifications.
What Does the Ames Decision Mean for Your Career?
The Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services decision sends a strong message: Title VII protects everyone equally, without hidden barriers. If you’re an executive or physician dealing with workplace discrimination, do not believe that nothing can be done.
At Gardner Employment Law, we specialize in advising executives and physicians regarding issues at work and career decisions. We understand the challenges that you face. If you are in a quandary about what appears to be a discriminatory situation, schedule a consultation with Gardner Employment Law. We can help you map your plan forward.