Description

In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down precedent placing a higher evidentiary burden on members of a majority group bringing discrimination claims under Title VII. The Court rejected the heightened evidentiary standard adopted by the Sixth Circuit, the "background circumstances" rule, that required plaintiffs of a majority group to provide additional evidence that the employer was an "unusual" or "rare" entity that discriminates against the majority. This was evidence beyond what was required of minority plaintiffs under the first prong of the McDonnell Douglas framework. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch questioned the suitability of the McDonnell Douglas framework in its entirety.

The Ames decision, in conjunction with the new administration's executive orders targeting DEI and eliminating the use of disparate impact claims, as well as the EEOC's guidance aimed at discrimination related to DEI initiatives, has significant implications for employers. Employers are likely to see an increase in discrimination claims, including those challenging DEI initiatives, by plaintiffs who have historically been part of majority groups.

Therefore, counsel should understand the evolving legal landscape surrounding workplace discrimination claims to best guide their employer clients through policy review and development to be in the best position to defend against such claims. Counsel should also be able to advise clients, who may be subject to more stringent state anti-discrimination laws, on how to remain compliant without risking federal enforcement activity.

Listen as our expert panel examines Ames in conjunction with the current administration's anti-discrimination initiatives. The panel will discuss the impact the current regulatory environment may have on employers' anti-discrimination efforts and offer best practices to mitigate the risk of discrimination claims.