Ames Case: Supreme Court Questions Extra Hurdles for Majority-Group Bias Claims

On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that could reshape how majority-group plaintiffs prove workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, is a heterosexual woman who said she was denied a promotion and later demoted in favor of less-qualified colleagues due to sex and sexual orientation discrimination. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claim, ruling that she failed to provide “background circumstances” proving her employer discriminated against her.

During oral arguments, justices questioned whether this additional burden aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedent in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which established a framework for proving discrimination claims. Ames’ counsel argued that Title VII protects all workers equally and that imposing extra hurdles on majority-group plaintiffs violates its intent. The Ohio solicitor general defended the 6th Circuit’s approach as a valid analytical method rather than an unfair additional requirement.

The court’s decision, expected by early summer, could have significant implications for employment discrimination law and how Title VII cases are adjudicated nationwide.