Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson states that Title VII does not require a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority” group to present “additional background circumstances” as the lower court had held.
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, petitioner Marlean Ames (“Ames”), a heterosexual woman, claimed that her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, had passed her over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified gay woman. Soon after that, Ames claimed, the Department of Youth Services demoted Ames (and cut her pay) so that a gay man could fill the position rendered vacant by her demotion.
Ames brought suit under Title VII claiming that the Ohio Department of Youth Services had discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation. The District Court granted the Ohio Department of Youth Services summary judgment on the grounds that Ames failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination because “she had not presented evidence of [sufficient] background circumstances.” The lower court had found that, as a member of the “majority group,” i.e., heterosexuals, Ames needed to present evidence of “background circumstances” (referred to by the Court as the “background circumstances rule”) to establish that the defendant was the rare employer that would discriminate against the “majority” group.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Video: NLRB Shifts Enforcement, DOL’s Non-Union Focus, and EEOC’s DEI Crackdown - Employment Law This Week
- After Ames, the Third Circuit Ends New Jersey’s Background Circumstances Rule for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- SEC Issues New Guidance Under Rule 701 for Employee Equity Compensation
- Video: NLRB and DOL Take Action on Joint Employer and Independent Contractor Rules - Employment Law This Week
- Massachusetts Court Rejects Individual Liability and Aiding-and-Abetting Claims Under Paid Family and Medical Leave Law