On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision clarifying the evidentiary standard for Title VII disparate treatment claims. The Court held that plaintiffs who are members of a majority group—such as heterosexuals, men, or whites—are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. This decision resolves a circuit split, reinforcing that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of group membership.
In that case, Marlean Ames, who identifies as a heterosexual woman, had been employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, holding various positions over the years. In 2019, she applied for a newly established management role within the agency’s Office of Quality and Improvement. Although she was interviewed for this position, the agency ultimately selected another candidate, a lesbian woman, for the job. Shortly after her interview, Ames was removed from her position as program administrator by her supervisors. She accepted a demotion, returning to her previous secretarial role, which came with a significant reduction in pay. The agency subsequently filled the now-vacant program administrator position with a gay man.
Ames believed that her sexual orientation was the reason she was denied the promotion and later demoted. As a result, she filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging that these employment decisions constituted discrimination under Title VII. The lower courts initially ruled against her, applying a heightened evidentiary standard because she was a member of a majority group. Under that heightened evidentiary standard, the court required a member of a majority group to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
In an interesting concurring opinion, Justice Thomas signaled that, in an appropriate case, he would be willing to reconsider whether the long-standing McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test remains a workable and useful evidentiary tool for trial courts evaluating disparate treatment employment discrimination claims.
This decision should have little impact on Texas employers because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was not one of the circuits requiring members of a majority group to make a heightened showing that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.
A copy of Ames v. Ohio Depart. of Youth Services is available here.
