Ames v. Ohio Dep’t. of Youth Servs.: SCOTUS Clarifies Standard for “Majority Group” Claims
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS” or the “Supreme Court”) issued its ruling in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t, of Youth Services – a case wherein the plaintiff alleged that she had been discriminated against by her employer due to her sexual orientation (heterosexual).[1] In doing so, the Court resolved a Sixth Circuit split regarding whether plaintiffs in historic “majority groups” need to meet an additional burden compared to employees who are members of the minority. The previous standard – that majority plaintiffs must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” in addition to the typical prima facie burden – was struck down by the Court. [2] In Ames, the Court ruled unanimously that the “background circumstances rule” was contrary to the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which clearly prohibits discrimination against any protected class.[3] In doing so, the Court clarified that majority plaintiffs are required to meet the same burden of proof as minority ones.[4]
Some Circuit Courts had already abandoned the “background circumstances” doctrine and had required the same standard of proof for majority and minority plaintiffs. However, other Circuit Courts, such as the Tenth Circuit (which includes the District of Colorado) must now reduce the burden of proof for majority plaintiffs.[5] Practically, the Court’s ruling means that majority group plaintiffs are more likely to proceed past the summary judgment or motion to dismiss phase of litigation. This means that private law firms are more likely to take on these types of cases, and complainants will be more likely to bring these claims. Additionally, legal scholars have hypothesized that the Court is poised to reexamine the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, which is hallmark of employment discrimination lawsuits.[6] This would have a significant impact on how employment discrimination cases are considered.
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida: Post-Employment Disability Claims
On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that winning an ADA discrimination claim requires a plaintiff to prove that they held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodations at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination.[7] In Stanley, the plaintiff served as a firefighter for nearly twenty years before she took disability retirement in 2018 at the age of 47, two years after she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.[8] When she retired, she learned that her employer’s retiree health insurance policy had been changed in 2003 to provide disability retirees only 24 months of free health insurance, rather than free coverage until the age of 65. The plaintiff sued her former employer, claiming that the reduction in benefits violated the ADA because it discriminated against her as a retiree with a disability.[9] The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, ruling that because the employer reduced the disability retiree health benefit in 2003, when the plaintiff was not disabled, unlawful discrimination did not occur.[10] Additionally, when her health insurance ran out, the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because she had been retired for two years, could not satisfy the requirements of her job, and was not seeking employment at the time.[11]
Practically, the Court’s decision limits the ADA’s employment discrimination protections to only those who hold or desire a job – making it more difficult for retirees to prevail on an ADA claim.[12] However, the Court clarified that retired plaintiffs may still prevail, provided that they prove that they were both disabled and qualified when their employer adopted a discriminatory retirement
[1] https://perkinscoie.c/insights/update/scotus-clarifies-law-majority-group-title-vii-claims
[2] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/us-supreme-court-holds-no-higher-standard-for-majority-group
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/scotus-rules-against-retired-firefighter-in-disability-discrimination-case.html
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.