By: Mitchell Vachon, Associate; Matthew Sgnilek, Partner; and Spencer Berry, Law Clerk

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services. It overturned the Sixth Circuit’s heightened requirement for majority group plaintiffs in cases of discrimination pursuant to Title VII. The decision clarified that all complainants no matter the group to which they belong are subject to the same evidentiary standard in discrimination cases. While the ruling was widely predicted, it is not often that the present Court offers a unanimous opinion, which underscores the Court’s unequivocal commitment to ensuring equal application of the law to all litigants. Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination does not recognize a higher or more difficult burden of proof for one set of plaintiffs merely because they happen to reflect a protected characteristic shared by a majority of individuals.

Facts and Procedural History

Petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked her way up from a secretary position to a program administrator position at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Upon the creation of a new management role, Ames applied and interviewed. Instead, the role was filled by a lesbian woman and Ames was demoted and replaced by a gay man. Ames then sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services for sexual orientation discrimination.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding Ames, as a straight female, was in the majority and therefore required to present evidence of “background circumstances” suggesting the agency “was the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group.” The District Court found Ames did not proffer such evidence and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The Court’s Decision

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” test established by the Sixth Circuit requires members of the “majority” to bear an additional burden at step one of the McDonnell Douglas’ burden-shifting framework. The opinion found the Sixth Circuit rule was not supported by the text of Title VII providing no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. The first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework was not intended to be “onerous” or “inflexible.”

The Supreme Court therefore did away with the Sixth Circuit rule, holding Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs.

More importantly to this article, the Supreme Court assumes the McDonnell Douglas framework applies at the summary judgment stage, without ruling it does.

Justice Thomas’ Concurrence

While the opinion avoids addressing the applicability of McDonnell Douglas, Justice Thomas invites the question to be brought to the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas reasons that the McDonnell Douglas framework, like the “background circumstances” test, is judge-made doctrine which has led to confusion about its application with “no basis in the text of Title VII or any other source of law.” Ultimately, Justice Thomas worries that the framework gets in the way of addressing the heart of any discrimination matter, “simply whether ‘the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff,’” and the issue before summary judgment, “a genuine dispute regarding the facts.” In Justice Thomas’ opinion, the McDonnell Douglas framework “requires a plaintiff to prove too much at summary judgment.”

Will the Supreme Court Review the McDonnell Douglas Framework?

Footnote 2 and Justice Thomas’ concurrence invites criticism to the traditional McDonnel Douglas framework. Justice Thomas’ concurrence invites courts to do away with the McDonnell Douglas framework all together at the summary judgment stage. The Supreme Court, after all, has never explicitly ruled the McDonnell Douglas framework applies at summary judgment.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court may have had the opportunity to revisit the McDonnell Douglas framework but chose not to. On March 10, 2025, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Hittle v. City of Stockton, 101 F.4th 1000 (9th Cir. 2024). Justice Thomas dissented, Justice Gorsuch joining, arguing “[t]his case squarely presents the question whether McDonnell Douglas should be overruled.”

How O’Hagan Meyer Can Help

While Ames clarifies one standard, it simultaneously opens the door to new litigation strategies and potential challenges to a long-standing legal framework. For employers, this means increased complexity and heightened risk. Employers may expect to see a rise in majority plaintiff claims and lawsuits, which underscores the continuing importance of ensuring consistent application of your company policies and procedures to all. The potential for a rise in discrimination claims from all employee demographics, coupled with the uncertain future of the McDonnell Douglas framework, makes proactive legal counsel more critical than ever.

The attorneys in O’Hagan Meyer’s Labor & Employment Practice are at the forefront of these developments. We partner with businesses to navigate this evolving legal terrain, providing strategic advice to minimize risk and ensure compliance. Our team can assist with:

    • Policy and Procedure Audits: We conduct comprehensive reviews of your employment policies, handbooks, and DEI programs to identify potential vulnerabilities in light of recent legal shifts.
    • Preventative Counseling & Training: We provide tailored training for managers and HR professionals on compliant hiring, promotion, and termination practices to prevent claims before they arise.
    • Vigorous Litigation Defense: Should a claim be filed, our seasoned litigators are prepared to vigorously defend your organization and challenge attempts by plaintiffs’ counsel to dismantle established summary judgment standards.

In an environment of legal uncertainty, O’Hagan Meyer provides the clarity and robust defense your business needs to thrive.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, reach out to an O’Hagan Meyer attorney today.