Summary judgment is where many employment cases are resolved and where a strong record can mean the difference between dismissal and costly litigation. This session looks at how the decisions employers make during real-time issues — managing performance, documenting concerns, responding to complaints — can shape the legal strategy months down the line. We’ll talk about how courts evaluate records, what makes a case suitable for early dismissal, and how working closely with counsel from the outset can drive better, more efficient outcomes when litigation hits.
Articles Discussing Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964.
Supreme Court: Plaintiffs Claiming Reverse Discrimination Not Required to Meet Heightened Evidentiary Burden
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a disagreement between circuit courts over the burden of proof required by a plaintiff from a majority group alleging discrimination under Title VII
Title VII Lawsuit in Utah Federal District Court Challenges Employee’s Firing After Making Online Posts
An in-house attorney recently sued his former employer in a Utah federal district court for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging he was unlawfully fired after posting social media remarks criticizing gender-affirming care for transgender people and opposing a Utah nonprofit organization
Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs bringing claims for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the Court held that such plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split and reaffirmed that Title VII’s protections apply uniformly to “any individual,” regardless of demographic status.
Background: Sixth Circuit’s “Background Circumstances” Rule
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a promotion and demoted, with her previous position filled by a gay man. She alleged that these adverse employment actions were taken because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.
Title VII makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, or religion — including sexual orientation. Because Ames did not have direct proof of discrimination, the courts applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, a legal test used to evaluate claims based on circumstantial evidence.
Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit applied that framework but required Ames to first show “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was the rare type that discriminates against members of a majority group. Because Ames did not present statistical evidence or proof related to the protected traits of decisionmakers, the courts found she failed to meet her burden and granted summary judgment for the employer.
Supreme Court’s Decision: Title VII Applies Uniformly
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, holding that Title VII does not allow courts to impose a heightened evidentiary burden based on a plaintiff’s group identity. The statute prohibits intentional discrimination against “any individual” because of a protected characteristic, regardless of whether that person is a member of a majority or minority group.
The Court found the Sixth Circuit’s approach inconsistent with both the plain language of Title VII and decades of Supreme Court precedent. As the Court explained, the law protects all individuals equally, and courts cannot create additional barriers for certain plaintiffs simply because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation.
The opinion also reaffirmed that the McDonnell Douglas framework is intended to remain flexible and context-dependent. The Court has long held that the precise requirements for making a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and were “never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.” The Sixth Circuit’s rule departed from that principle by uniformly requiring all majority-group plaintiffs to make a specific additional showing—such as statistical evidence or information about a decisionmaker’s protected trait—solely based on group membership. The Court found this categorical requirement inconsistent with both Title VII’s text and its own instructions in McDonnell Douglas, which reject “inflexible,” one-size-fits-all evidentiary standards in disparate-treatment cases.
Court Rejects Ohio’s Reframing of the Rule
Ohio argued that the “background circumstances” requirement was not an added burden, but merely another way to assess whether the surrounding facts supported an inference of discrimination. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the Sixth Circuit explicitly imposed the requirement because Ames was a member of a majority group. According to the Court, Ames had otherwise satisfied the basic elements of a prima facie case, but her claim was dismissed solely due to this extra judicially-created hurdle.
What This Means for Employers
The Ames decision eliminates a barrier that some courts had imposed on so-called “reverse discrimination” claims, confirming that Title VII does not distinguish between majority and minority status when evaluating allegations of intentional discrimination. Employers should anticipate that plaintiffs of any background can invoke the same prima facie standards when bringing Title VII claims.
As a practical matter, the decision clarifies that majority-group plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII must be assessed under the same evidentiary standard as all other claimants. It reinforces that courts may not impose heightened thresholds based on a plaintiff’s demographic status, and that Title VII applies equally to all individuals. Going forward, we may see a rise in claims brought by majority plaintiffs.
If you have any questions about this decision or how it may affect your employment practices or litigation strategies please contact your favorite CDF attorney. To stay up to date, be sure to subscribe to CDF’s California Labor & Employment Blog.
*Special thanks to CDF law clerk Ryan Kim for his research and analysis for this article.
High Court Eliminates “Background Circumstances” as a Requirement in “Reverse Discrimination” Cases
High Court Eliminates “Background Circumstances” as a Requirement in “Reverse Discrimination” Cases
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously struck down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to establish a
Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Standard for Discrimination Claims From Majority Groups
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that employees who are part of a majority group do not have a higher evidentiary standard to prove workplace discrimination. The ruling revived a heterosexual woman’s lawsuit alleging she was discriminated against in favor of employees who identify
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Higher Pleading Standard for Reverse Discrimination Claims
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a sex discrimination case as it sided with a straight woman on the standard to be used in pleading disparate treatment on the basis of her sexual orientation. The Court granted certiorari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
EEO-1 Data Collection Now Live: Are You in Compliance?
The post EEO-1 Data Collection Now Live: Are You in Compliance? appeared first on Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP.
Changes to EEO-1 Report Approved
As an update to our previous post, the EEOC’s request for a non-substantive change to remove the option for employers to voluntarily report non-binary
EEO-1 Portal Open for Filing May 20, 2025
The EEOC announced the opening of the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection on May 20, 2025, as anticipated in our previous legal alert on the topic.
EEOC Acting Chair Warns No ‘Diversity Exception’ to Title VII in Announcing EEO-1 Reporting Period Opening
On May 20, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) opened the platform for employers to submit EEO-1 reports. In doing so, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas warned employers not to use the data to take employment actions and reinforced earlier technical assistance that diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)
BREAKING NEWS: EEO-1 Data Collection Opens
As projected, the 2024 EEO-1 Data Collection is officially open. The deadline to file the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 report is Tuesday, June 24,
EEOC Acting Director Warns No ‘Diversity Exception’ to Title VII in Announcing EEO-1 Reporting Period Opening
On May 20, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) opened the platform for employers to submit EEO-1 reports. In doing so, EEOC Acting Director Andrea Lucas warned employers not to use the data to take employment actions and reinforced earlier technical assistance that diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)
The End of Disparate Impact Claims? Executive Order Calls Into Question Common Theory of Liability
Federal Agencies Directed to End Enforcement of Disparate Impact Discrimination Claims Under President Trump’s New Executive Order
On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” (“Executive Order”). This Executive Order is one in a series issued by President Trump with the goal of eliminating Diversity Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) policies and practices. This Executive Order focuses on dismantling legal claims for discrimination based on a disparate impact theory of liability.
Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), among many other federal and state laws, disparate impact liability exists where a neutral policy or practice is shown to have a disproportionately negative effect on a protected group, such as race, national origin, and gender, regardless of intent. There are various legal defenses to disparate impact claims, including showing that the policy or practice is “job-related” or based on a legitimate “business necessity.”
Notwithstanding available affirmative defenses, the new Executive Order broadly asserts that it will “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts.” The Order cites concerns that potential disparate impact claims hinder businesses from making hiring decisions, undermine national values, and are contrary to equal protection under the law. For now, the Executive Order does not change existing law authorizing claims for disparate impact liability because such changes must be handled through the formal regulatory rulemaking or legislative process.
The Executive Order also lays out various steps the Trump Administration intends to take to curtail the use of disparate impact claims in the near future. The Executive Order instructs federal agencies (such as the EEOC)not to pursue administrative claims based on disparate impact liability. Next, the Executive Order requires a review of any pending federal investigations, civil suits, injunctions, and positions taken in ongoing cases to ensure they are consistent with the new Order. Agencies may dismiss pending claims and refuse to advance arguments based on a disparate impact theory, although private litigants will be able to continue to use that theory in their claims.
The EEOC has also been directed to issue guidance and technical assistance to employers to find measures to promote equal access to employment for applicants “regardless of whether [they have] a college education.” While a college education is typically considered a neutral job-requirement (that the Executive Order is intended to support), the Executive Order appears to single out college education as one factor that should not impede access to employment generally. The Executive Order did not explain the basis for this provision under the Purpose section (Section 1).
Finally, the Executive Order instructs the Attorney General to repeal or amend regulations that authorize disparate impact liability based on race, color and national origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (for institutions that receive federal financial assistance). Similarly, the Executive Order states that the Attorney General should try to curtail any disparate impact laws at the state level, including assessing whether arguments can be made that state laws are preempted by federal law or otherwise violate the Constitution.
Summary
In sum, with this Executive Order, employers can expect to face less scrutiny from the EEOC of their policies and practices based on their alleged disparate impact. Litigants would still be able to rely on existing federal statutes, regulations and a developed body of court decisions endorsing disparate impact theories of liability. State law claims based on a disparate impact theory remain in effect, including in California, where the claim is recognized under state statutes such as FEHA.
We will continue to monitor and report on new developments in this area as further guidance is issued by the administration.
Upcoming Webinar: The Future of DEI for California Employers in a Shifting Legal Landscape
CDF will be hosting a complimentary webinar to further explore the impact of recent federal executive orders, including this latest directive concerning disparate impact claims. Join our panel of CDF attorneys for an insightful discussion on ”Upcoming Webinar: The Future of DEI for California Employers in a Shifting Legal Landscape,” this Wednesday, April 30, from 10-11 am (Pacific) – Register HERE to reserve your spot.