The U.S. Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a highly contentious case that will examine the standards of proof for reverse discrimination claims under Title VII. This case follows closely behind the Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., where it lowered the burden of proof for employees claiming adverse employment actions. In that ruling, employees are now required to show that they suffered “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” Looking ahead, the Court will address the issue of “reverse” discrimination in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, specifically considering whether members of majority groups must meet a higher pleading standard when filing their claims.
In Ames, a heterosexual female employee filed a lawsuit against her employer, claiming that she was both demoted and denied a promotion due to her sexual orientation. The district court applied a higher pleading standard for claims involving majority group members, stating that the plaintiff needed to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence of these “background circumstances.”
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, applying the same heightened standard. While the appellate panel acknowledged that the plaintiff might have been able to establish a traditional discrimination case, her failure to present background circumstances—such as showing that “a member of the relevant minority group” was responsible for the adverse employment action or providing “statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the employer against the members of the majority group”—was ultimately detrimental to her claim. In a concurring opinion, the Chief Judge agreed with the majority’s application of the background circumstances rule but disagreed with the use of such a standard. He expressed hope that the Supreme Court would eventually address the matter.
With the Court agreeing to review the case, this decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s broader trend of increased scrutiny regarding the role that race, gender, and other protected categories play in legal matters, as seen in rulings like Muldrow and the Students for Fair Admissions case. Should the Supreme Court decide to invalidate the background circumstances rule, it could pave an easier path for non-traditional plaintiffs to prove reverse discrimination under Title VII. We will continue to track developments in this case and provide updates when SCOTUS renders its decision.