In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services  (Ames), the United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned a higher standard that  some federal appeals courts were imposing on majority group members claiming workplace discrimination.

To pursue a claim, plaintiffs must make an initial prima facie showing that the facts  fulfill basic legal elements. For example, to maintain a suit for unpaid wages, a worker would have to assert s/he was defendant’s employee, performed work, and was not paid or paid too little.

A federal prima facie case of employment discrimination or “disparate treatment“ requires the  plaintiff to show the employer had a discriminatory motive for an action such as hiring, firing, disciplining or not promoting him or her.

In Ohio federal court, Ms. Ames, a heterosexual woman, met that prime facie standard by showing she was denied a promotion and then demoted in favor of homosexual persons in two instances.  However, the trial court, upheld by the appeals court, required her to also show that “[b]ackground circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Rejecting that extra step in Ames, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:

Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision 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.”

Justice Sotomayor also stated that “by establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”  Courts therefore may no longer impose the additional requirement on majority plaintiffs.

Take-Away:  

Employment discrimination against any protected group, whether majority or minority, is illegal under both federal and state law.  Decisions on such things as hiring, firing, compensation, and discipline must be made based on ability, education, longevity, behavior and other business-related factors, not on an employee’s or potential employee’s protected characteristics.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Religious Discrimination is No Vacation: EEOC is Suing Marriott for Failure to Accommodate Saturday Sabbath (May 16, 2025)
• Digital Diligence: AI Hiring Tools Must Avoid Discrimination (May 15, 2025)
• Older Workers are People, Too: EEOC Settles Age Discrimination Claims Against Theatre Chain (May 9, 2025)

Helena Kobrin
June 13, 2025