Title VII Protections Affirmed by the Supreme Court

Highlights in This Article

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a cornerstone of American employment law, designed to help ensure that individuals are protected against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 
• Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (an appeal of a 2023 Sixth Circuit Court decision) stands out as a significant case in the evolution of Title VII jurisprudence and affirms the broad applicability of these protections to all workers within covered employment settings.
• The Supreme Court's unanimous opinions in this case invalidated additional evidentiary standards for majority groups and questioned the use of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Thus, the decision leaves a presumption that future discrimination cases may be able to proceed in court more easily. 

The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on June 5, disqualifying some historically used criteria for majority plaintiffs in Title VII discrimination suits. This decision may leave the door open for more suits to proceed in court. This article summarizes some key details for this case. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Enacted during the height of the civil rights movement, Title VII sought to create equal employment opportunity by defining illegal employment practices. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees, and its scope includes hiring, firing, promotions and other employment practices. 

"It shall be an unlawful employment practices for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge an individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Services

As stated in the opinion syllabus, "Petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2019, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate—a lesbian woman. The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and later hired a gay man to fill that role. Ames then filed a lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation." The Ames case was first heard in the District Court, which granted summary judgment, followed by the Sixth Circuit Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision. 

In its case, the Supreme Court evaluated the applicability of the McDonnell Douglas framework, which provides a three-step process for assessing employment discrimination claims. This framework has a long history of use in discrimination cases. The Court's opinion states, "At the first step of that framework, the plaintiff must take a prima facie showing that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive ... Like the District Court, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown, "'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'"

The Court held that "The Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court's precedents." Thus, the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion for this case essentially questioned the use of the McDonnell Douglas framework and invalidated the additional burden for majority groups in Title VII suits. 

Conclusion—Potential Implications of the Ruling

With doubt cast on the validity of the McDonnell Douglas framework and without heightened evidentiary standards for majority groups, the door is perhaps now left more widely open for discrimination claims to proceed in court. 

Employers should ensure that all employees are given equal employment opportunity and should take steps to counteract employment discrimination for all employees, in accordance with applicable laws.