Every June, people around the country wait eagerly for the Supreme Court of the United State to issue opinions in the cases they have heard in the session that began in October. OSBA reported on one education-related case in last week’s legal ledger blog. Another one of the key cases before the current Court was decided last Thursday, June 5.
The case, Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. _____ (2025), involves an allegation of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination against any individual on the basis of sex. The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had been an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, Ames applied and was interviewed for a new management position. The department ultimately hired a lesbian woman for the position. The department later demoted Ames from her position as a program administrator and then hired a gay man to fill her former role. Ames’s Title VII lawsuit against the department alleged that she was not promoted, and later demoted, because of her sexual orientation.
The district court granted summary judgment to the department, holding that Ames had not shown facts to demonstrate that the department acted with a discriminatory motive when making employment decisions affecting her. It concluded that, because Ames was a member of a majority group, she was required to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The district court found that Ames had not shown the necessary background circumstances and, therefore, failed to make a case. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Ames appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that Title VII’s disparate treatment provision draws no distinction between majority- and minority-group plaintiffs. The law prohibits discrimination against any individual based on sex, regardless of whether the individual is part of a minority or majority group.
In summary, the Court stated: “The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs – those who are members of majority groups – to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard” to demonstrate their case. The court concluded: “Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs.” As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Ames case will be reconsidered by the United States District Court in Ohio.
OSBA’s division of legal services will continue to monitor the Supreme Court’s decisions as they are issued and share information as it becomes available. The division is available to answer general questions about the Ames case, or Title VII, at (855) 672-2529 or (855) OSBA-LAW. For questions about the application of Ames to specific situations, districts should contact their legal counsel.