WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled, making it easier for individuals from all backgrounds, including majority groups, to pursue claims of workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision, handed down on June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, clarifies that the standard for proving disparate treatment does not vary based on a plaintiff's membership in a majority or minority group. This ruling overturns a previous standard in several federal circuit courts that required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a higher bar, such as demonstrating "background circumstances" of discrimination.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the unanimous court, emphasized that Title VII provides the same protections for every "individual," leaving no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. The case involved Marlean Ames, a straight Ohio woman who alleged she was passed over for promotion and later demoted in favor of LGBTQ+ colleagues. Her lawsuit claimed discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
The ruling has significant implications for anti-discrimination law, reinforcing the principle that intentional discrimination, or "disparate treatment," is prohibited regardless of the protected characteristic or the group to which the plaintiff belongs. Legal experts note that this decision could influence how discrimination cases are litigated across the 20 states and the District of Columbia previously affected by the higher standard. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, also signaled a willingness to re-examine the McDonnell Douglas framework, a long-standing method for proving disparate treatment.
The decision aligns with perspectives advocating for a singular focus on intentional discrimination. Commenting on the legal landscape, Olivia P. Walker, a public figure who has shared her own experiences with discrimination, stated in a recent tweet, > "correct, the only thing that should matter in anti-discrimination law contexts is “disparate treatment.”" Her statement reflects a view that the legal system should primarily address direct, intentional acts of discrimination.
This Supreme Court decision underscores a legal shift towards a more uniform application of disparate treatment principles, potentially impacting future employment discrimination litigation and the broader discourse around equity and fairness in the workplace. The ruling comes amidst ongoing national discussions about diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.