A unanimous Supreme Court decision in June 2025 has clarified important standards for discrimination cases, making it easier for all workers—regardless of their background—to pursue valid claims.
Table of Contents
- The Landmark Ames Decision
- What the “Background Circumstances” Test Was
- Why the Supreme Court Rejected This Approach
- What This Means for Los Angeles Workers
- How to Prove Discrimination Under Current Law
- Protected Characteristics Under Title VII and FEHA
- Building Your Discrimination Case
- How Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. Can Help
The Landmark Ames Decision
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard based on their majority-group status. This decision represents a significant clarification of discrimination law that benefits all workers.
The case involved Marlean Ames, who alleged she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation. The lower courts had applied a special test that required her to provide additional evidence simply because she was heterosexual. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this approach, holding that the law protects all individuals equally.
What the “Background Circumstances” Test Was
Before the Ames decision, some federal courts applied what was known as the “background circumstances” test. This test required certain plaintiffs to provide extra proof that their employer was the type of company “unusually inclined” to discriminate against majority groups.
For example, a heterosexual person claiming sexual orientation discrimination, or a white person claiming race discrimination, had to meet a higher evidentiary bar than other plaintiffs. They couldn’t simply show they were qualified and were treated less favorably than similarly situated individuals—they also had to prove additional “background circumstances” suggesting the employer discriminates against majority groups.
This created an unfair two-tier system where some discrimination victims faced easier paths to proving their cases than others, based solely on their demographic characteristics.
Why the Supreme Court Rejected This Approach
Justice Jackson emphasized that Title VII is about protecting individuals, not groups. The law is neutral as to group status. The Court’s reasoning was straightforward:
Plain Language of the Law: Title VII prohibits discrimination against individuals “because of” protected characteristics. It doesn’t distinguish between majority and minority group members.
Individual Rights Focus: Employment discrimination law protects individual workers, not demographic groups. Every person has the right to a workplace free from discrimination.
Equal Standards Required: Requiring some plaintiffs to meet higher standards contradicts the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law.
Practical Fairness: The background circumstances test created arbitrary barriers that had no basis in the statutory text.
The Court’s unanimous decision makes clear that all discrimination plaintiffs—regardless of whether they’re in a traditionally protected minority—are entitled to the same legal standards.
What This Means for Los Angeles Workers
The Ames decision has important implications for employees throughout Los Angeles and California:
Simplified Legal Standards: All discrimination plaintiffs now use the same framework to establish their claims, regardless of their demographic characteristics.
Broader Protection: Workers who might have previously faced additional hurdles can now pursue valid discrimination claims on equal footing with other plaintiffs.
Focus on Merit: Cases will be decided based on the evidence of discrimination, not on assumptions about which groups are typically discriminated against.
Consistency Across Courts: The decision eliminates the patchwork of different standards that existed in various federal circuits.
While the Ames case dealt with Title VII (federal law), its reasoning reinforces California’s strong anti-discrimination protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which already protects all individuals from discrimination.
How to Prove Discrimination Under Current Law
After the Ames decision, discrimination cases follow a consistent framework. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, an employee must generally show:
Protected Characteristic: You belong to a protected class (race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, etc.).
Qualification for Position: You were qualified for your job or the position you sought.
Adverse Action: You suffered an adverse employment action (termination, demotion, pay reduction, failure to hire/promote, etc.).
Similarly Situated Comparison: Others outside your protected class who were similarly situated were treated more favorably.
Importantly, the Ames decision clarifies that all plaintiffs meet this same standard—there’s no additional burden based on which protected group you belong to.
Protected Characteristics Under Title VII and FEHA
Federal Protection Under Title VII:
- Race
- Color
- Religion
- Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity)
- National origin
Additional California Protections Under FEHA:
- Age (40 and over)
- Disability and medical condition
- Genetic information
- Marital status
- Military and veteran status
- Political activities or affiliations (in some contexts)
California’s FEHA often provides broader protections than federal law, and the California Civil Rights Department enforces these protections vigorously.
Building Your Discrimination Case
Whether you’re in a traditionally protected minority or not, building a strong discrimination case requires the same careful approach:
Document Discriminatory Treatment
Keep detailed records of:
- Discriminatory comments or actions
- Dates, times, locations, and witnesses
- Performance reviews and work product examples
- Comparative treatment of other employees
- Any changes in treatment following complaints
Establish Your Qualifications
Gather evidence showing:
- Performance reviews
- Awards or recognition
- Completed training or certifications
- Successful projects or achievements
- Meeting or exceeding job expectations
Identify Similarly Situated Comparators
Note how colleagues with similar:
- Job duties and responsibilities
- Performance levels
- Experience and qualifications
- Disciplinary histories
were treated differently than you.
Report the Discrimination
Follow your employer’s procedures:
- File written complaints with HR
- Use any internal grievance processes
- Document the employer’s response
- Note any retaliatory actions following complaints
Preserve All Evidence
Save:
- Emails and text messages
- Company policies and handbooks
- Personnel file documents
- Witness contact information
How Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. Can Help
At Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., we stay current with important developments in employment law, including landmark decisions like Ames. Our firm has extensive experience representing Los Angeles employees in all types of discrimination cases.
How We Can Assist You:
Understanding Your Rights: We explain how recent legal developments, including the Ames decision, affect your specific situation.
Case Evaluation: We thoroughly review your circumstances to identify all potential discrimination claims under both federal and California law.
Evidence Development: We help you gather and organize the evidence needed to prove discrimination under current legal standards.
Strategic Representation: Our attorneys develop litigation strategies that account for the latest legal developments and maximize your chances of success.
Comprehensive Approach: We pursue all available remedies, including back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
No Fees Unless We Win: We handle discrimination cases on a contingency basis—you pay no attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you.
The Ames decision confirms what California law has long recognized: employment discrimination law protects all individuals, and all discrimination victims deserve equal access to justice. Whether you’re experiencing discrimination based on traditional protected characteristics or facing less common forms of discrimination, you have the same legal rights and protections.
If you believe you’ve experienced workplace discrimination in Los Angeles or Southern California, contact Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. for a free consultation. We’ll review your situation in light of current law, including the Ames decision, and help you understand your options.
Don’t let discrimination go unchallenged. Contact us today to protect your rights and explore your legal options.
