In June, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) delivered a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, remanding a case alleging sex discrimination for further development of the case’s merits. Although this does not mean the plaintiff will win her lawsuit, the decision restored her case and reshaped the burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ames isn’t just about legal compliance; it’s about fostering truly equitable environments for all.
What Ames v. Ohio Decided
At its core, Ames addressed a long-standing circuit split concerning how discrimination claims brought by white, heterosexual, and male plaintiffs are evaluated. In some jurisdictions, these plaintiffs faced an additional, heightened burden: they had to demonstrate “background circumstances” suggesting their employer was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Many of these cases were dismissed after Motions for Summary Judgment.
In Ames, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a unanimous opinion rejecting the background circumstances rule. The Court emphasized that Title VII’s plain language protects “any individual” from discrimination, without distinguishing them based on their majority or minority status. Going forward, all discrimination claims, regardless of the plaintiff’s identity, will be evaluated under the same standard.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion further highlighted SCOTUS’s scrutiny of judicially created frameworks. He specifically mentioned Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and cautioned against practices that could lead to “overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.”
Why This Decision Matters
- Equal Protection for All. Ames reinforces the principle that it’s either unlawful discrimination, or it’s not, finally eliminating the notion of “reverse discrimination.” Title VII protects everyone equally.
- Increased Scrutiny for DEI. While Ames doesn’t outlaw DEI, it signals increased legal scrutiny consistent with recent Executive Orders and statewide bans. Employers must ensure their DEI programs genuinely promote broad opportunity and inclusion for all, rather than inadvertently creating preferences or exclusions based on protected characteristics.
- Interplay with Other Rulings. Ames builds on recent SCOTUS decisions like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which restricts race-conscious admissions and Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold of harm for Title VII claims. Together, these rulings are calling for careful review of employment practices.
The Third Ear Approach in a Post-Ames World
At Third Ear Conflict Resolution, we’ve long advocated for the principle that There Is No Hierarchy of Protected Classes. The Ames decision directly aligns with this philosophy, underscoring the legal and ethical imperative to treat all claims of discrimination with equal gravity.
This ruling challenges us to listen with our third ears, moving beyond labels and assumptions. We listen for the hurts we can heal, seeking to understand the individual harm and to address underlying needs when workplace conflicts arise. This sophisticated approach to workplace disputes is especially important and effective when competing rights or perceived biases are at play. Our work in ethno-religious mediation and navigating protected class conflicts has shown us that true equity comes from fostering a culture of inclusion for everyone, addressing implicit bias without creating new forms of discrimination.
Our New Online Course
Understanding the nuances of Ames v. Ohio is crucial for attorneys, human resources professionals, small business owners, and anyone involved in employment decisions. To help you navigate this new legal reality, I’ve developed a one-hour online course for Lawline.com for lawyers, and I frequently train executives and managers privately.