The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
Analysis
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: Key Takeaways for Organizations
Advancing DEI Initiative
Recap
The Supreme Court has issued its decision in In Ames, a straight woman claimed that she was first denied a promotion and later demoted from her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services because of her sexual orientation. In the case of the promotion, a lesbian candidate was hired instead, and after Ames was demoted, the vacant position was filled by a gay man.
Before trial, the district court ruled against Ames, finding she had not provided evidence of background circumstances showing that the department was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” This heightened evidentiary burden, which only applied to majority-group plaintiffs, was known as the “background circumstances rule.” It only existed in certain circuits (areas of the country).
After the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case. The Court has now decided that the background circumstances rule should not be applied and is inconsistent with the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result, all plaintiffs, whether members of a dominant or majority group (e.g., white, men, heterosexual individuals) or of a non-dominant or minority group (e.g., Black, women, LGBTQ+ individuals), will face the same requirements and standards for demonstrating that discrimination has occurred.
What this means for workplace DEI programs
Even before this case, most circuits did not hold plaintiffs from dominant or majority groups to a higher standard than non-dominant plaintiffs. While this decision will make it easier in some jurisdictions for plaintiffs from dominant groups to succeed in their claims, this ruling is not a seismic shift in the legal landscape.
Since , we have been advising organizations that the Supreme Court is highly likely to adopt an identity-neutral interpretation of all civil rights laws, including Title VII, and this case is one example of that.
This case was not about a DEI program. Nonetheless, Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion (which Justice Gorsuch joined), indicating that at least those two Justices are hostile to DEI. In the opinion, they suggest that many employers are “obsessed” with DEI and that these initiatives often lead to discrimination against dominant groups. This is not a significant revelation given these Justices’ prior expressed views, including in Students for Fair Admissions.
After this decision, employers may continue to adopt a wide range of DEI programs that do not involve discrimination against any individual. See our explainer on .
Relevant Law
Title VII