PRELIMINARY PRINT
Volume 605 U. S. Part 1 Pages 303–326
OFFICIAL REPORTS OF
THE SUPREME COURT June 5, 2025
REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. OCTOBER TERM, 2024 303
Syllabus
AMES v. OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVICES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 23–1039. Argued February 26, 2025—Decided June 5, 2025 Petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2019, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate—a lesbian woman. The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and later hired a gay man to fll that role. Ames then fled this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, and the Sixth Circuit affrmed. The courts below analyzed Ames's claims under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, which sets forth the traditional framework for evaluating disparate-treatment claims that rest on cir- cumstantial evidence. At the frst step of that framework, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the defendant acted with a dis- criminatory motive. Like the District Court, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “ `background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' ” 87 F. 4th 822, 825. The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.” Ibid. Held: The Sixth Circuit's “background circumstances” rule—which re- quires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court's precedents. Pp. 308–313. (a) Title VII's disparate-treatment provision bars employers from in- tentionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). For most plaintiffs, the frst step of the McDonnell Douglas framework— stating a prima facie case of discrimination—is “not onerous.” Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 253. The Sixth Circuit's “background circumstances” rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no dis- tinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plain- 304 AMES v. OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVS.
tiffs. The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against “any individual” because of protected character- istics. Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone. This Court's precedents reinforce that understanding of the statute, and make clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a mem- ber of a majority group. See, e. g., Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 431 (“[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or major- ity, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed” in Title VII). Moreover, the “background circumstances” rule—which subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specifc evidentiary stand- ard in every case—ignores the Court's instruction to avoid infexible applications of the prima facie standard. Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 358. Pp. 308–311. (b) Ohio argues that the “background circumstances” rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened evidentiary standard but rather is “just another way of asking whether the circumstances surrounding an employment decision, if otherwise unexplained, suggest that the decision was because of a protected characteristic.” Brief for Respondent 10. Ohio's recasting is directly at odds with the Sixth Cir- cuit's description of the “background circumstances” rule and its applica- tion of that rule in this case. Ohio's alternative argument that Ames's Title VII claims would fail even absent the “background circumstances” rule is for the courts below to consider in the frst instance on remand. Pp. 311–313. 87 F. 4th 822, vacated and remanded.
Jackson, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., fled a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined, post, p. 313.
Xiao Wang argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Edward L. Gilbert. Ashley Robertson argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of vacatur. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Prelogar, Assistant Attorney General Clarke, Deputy Solicitor General Fletcher, Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, Karla Gilbride, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Anne Noel Occhialino, and Julie L. Gantz. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 305
Opinion of the Court
Yost, Attorney General, Michael J. Hendershot, Chief Dep- uty Solicitor General, and Samuel C. Peterson, Deputy Solic- itor General.*
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or na- tional origin. Under our Title VII precedents, a plaintiff may make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment by showing “that she applied for an available position for which she was qualifed, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 253 (1981). The question in this case is whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show “ `background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' ” 87 F. 4th 822, 825 (CA6 2023) (per curiam). We hold that this additional
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the America First Legal Foundation by Christopher E. Mills; for the American Alliance for Equal Rights by Thomas R. McCarthy and Cameron T. Norris; for the Equal Protection Project by William A. Jacobson and James R. Nault; for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Eric Schnapper; and for the Pacifc Legal Foundation by Jeffrey D. Jennings. Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the Local Gov- ernment Legal Center et al. by Nadia A. Sarkis and Kelly Shea Delvac; and for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., et al. by Janai S. Nelson, Samuel Spital, Alexsis M. Johnson, Avatara A. Smith- Car r ington, Molly M. Cain, Jenni fer A. Holmes, and Michaele N. Turnage-Young. Briefs of amici curiae were fled for the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women by Robert S. Mantell; for Katie Eyer et al. by Zachary D. Tripp, Robert B. Niles-Weed, Katie Eyer, pro se, Sandra F. Sperino, and Deborah A. Widiss; and for Josh Young by Wil- liam E. Trachman. 306 AMES v. OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVS.
“background circumstances” requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand for application of the proper prima facie standard.
I The Ohio Department of Youth Services operates the State's juvenile correctional system. In 2004, the agency hired petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to serve as an executive secretary. Ames was eventually pro- moted to program administrator and, in 2019, applied for a newly created management position in the agency's Offce of Quality and Improvement. Although the agency inter- viewed her for the position, it ultimately hired a different candidate—a lesbian woman—to fll the role. A few days after Ames interviewed for the management position, her supervisors removed her from her role as pro- gram administrator. She accepted a demotion to the secre- tarial role she had held when she frst joined the agency—a move that resulted in a signifcant pay cut. The agency then hired a gay man to fll the vacant program-administrator po- sition. Ames subsequently fled this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency. 2023 WL 2539214, *12 (SD Ohio, Mar. 16, 2023). The court analyzed Ames's claims under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), which establishes the traditional framework for evaluating disparate-treatment claims that rest on circumstantial evidence. At the frst step of that framework, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the defendant acted with a discriminatory mo- tive. Relying on Circuit precedent, the District Court con- cluded that Ames had failed to make that showing because Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 307
she had not presented evidence of “ `background circum- stances' ” suggesting that the agency was the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group. 2023 WL 2539214, *7. Without that evidence, the court held, plaintiffs who are members of majority groups—includ- ing heterosexual plaintiffs, like Ames—could not discharge their evidentiary burden at the frst step of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry. 2023 WL 2539214, *8–*9. The Sixth Circuit affrmed. Like the District Court, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “ `background cir- cumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the major- ity.' ” 87 F. 4th, at 825. The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.” Ibid. And it explained that plaintiffs can typically satisfy this burden, where applicable, by presenting “evi- dence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people) made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination . . . against members of the majority group.” Ibid. The panel concluded that the agency was entitled to summary judg- ment because Ames had failed to present either type of evi- dence. Ibid. Judge Kethledge concurred in the court's decision but wrote separately to express his disagreement with the “background circumstances” rule. In his view, the require- ment was not only unworkable—in that it required an assess- ment of evidence presented by different plaintiffs under dif- ferent standards—but also diverged substantially from Title VII's text. Id., at 827–828. The Sixth Circuit's decision reinforced a Circuit split as to whether majority-group plaintiffs are subject to a different evidentiary burden than minority-group plaintiffs at McDon- 308 AMES v. OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVS.
nell Douglas's frst step.1 We granted certiorari to resolve that split. See 603 U. S. 948 (2024).
II Title VII's disparate-treatment provision bars employers from intentionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). In McDonnell Doug- las, this Court laid out a three-step burden-shifting frame- work for evaluating claims arising under that provision. 411 U. S., at 802–804. The McDonnell Douglas framework aims to “bring the litigants and the court expeditiously and fairly to th[e] ultimate question” in a disparate-treatment case— namely, whether “the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253.2 At the frst step of the familiar three-step inquiry, the plaintiff bears the “initial burden” of “establishing a prima facie case” by producing enough evidence to support an infer- ence of discriminatory motive. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 802. If the plaintiff clears that hurdle, the burden 1 In addition to the Sixth Circuit, four other Circuits have held or sug- gested that majority-group plaintiffs must satisfy a heightened burden to make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII. See Hammer v. Ashcroft, 383 F. 3d 722, 724 (CA8 2004); Mills v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 171 F. 3d 450, 457 (CA7 1999); Harding v. Gray, 9 F. 3d 150, 153 (CADC 1993); Notari v. Denver Water Dept., 971 F. 2d 585, 589 (CA10 1992). Other Circuits do not impose any heightened burden on majority- group plaintiffs. 2 Although our cases have sometimes described the McDonnell Douglas inquiry as a “burden-shifting” framework, the “ultimate burden of per- suading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. McDonnell Douglas merely aims to provide “ `a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence' ” that “ `bears on the critical ques- tion of discrimination.' ” Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S. 711, 715 (1983). For purposes of this case, we assume without de- ciding that the McDonnell Douglas framework applies at the summary- judgment stage of litigation. Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 309
then “shift[s] to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection.” Ibid. Finally, if the employer articulates such a justifca- tion, the plaintiff must then have a “fair opportunity” to show that the stated justifcation “was in fact pretext” for discrimination. Id., at 804. A plaintiff “may succeed [under the McDonnell Douglas framework] either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of cre- dence.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 256. For most plaintiffs, the frst step of the McDonnell Doug- las framework—the prima facie burden—is “not onerous.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. A plaintiff may satisfy it simply by presenting evidence “that she applied for an available po- sition for which she was qualifed, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Ibid. But, under Sixth Circuit precedent, plaintiffs who are members of a majority group bear an addi- tional burden at step one: They must also establish “ `back- ground circumstances to support the suspicion that the de- fendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' ” 87 F. 4th, at 825. As outlined below, the Sixth Circuit's “background circum- stances” rule cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or our longstanding precedents. And nothing Ohio has said, in its brief or at oral argument, persuades us otherwise.
A As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provi- sion draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any indi- vidual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privi- leges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, 310 AMES v. OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVS.
religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(a)(1) (emphasis added). The “law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic.” Bostock v. Clay- ton County, 590 U. S. 644, 659 (2020). By establishing the same protections for every “individual”—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone. Our precedents reinforce that understanding of the stat- ute. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), for instance, we said that “[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Con- gress has proscribed” in Title VII. Id., at 431 (emphasis added). We made the same point even more explicitly in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U. S. 273 (1976), a few years later. The employer in that case had argued that certain forms of discrimination against White employees fell outside the reach of Title VII. Id., at 280, n. 8. But we rejected that argument, holding that “Title VII prohibit[ed] racial discrimination against the white peti- tioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.” Id., at 280 (emphasis added); see also id., at 279 (citing favorably the Equal Em- ployment Opportunity Commission's view that Title VII bars discrimination “against whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites”). Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for prov- ing disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. Accord, Bostock, 590 U. S., at 659 (“This statute works to protect individuals of both sexes from discrim- ination, and does so equally”). The “background circum- stances” rule fouts that basic principle. The “background circumstances” rule also ignores our instruction to avoid infexible applications of McDonnell Douglas's frst prong. This Court has repeatedly explained Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 311
that the “precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and were `never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.' ” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 512 (2002) (quoting Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577 (1978)). In McDonnell Douglas itself, we observed that the “facts necessarily will vary in Title VII cases,” and that “the prima facie proof required” can therefore differ from case to case. 411 U. S., at 802, n. 13. The “background circumstances” rule disregards this ad- monition by uniformly subjecting all majority-group plain- tiffs to the same, highly specifc evidentiary standard in every case. As the Sixth Circuit observed, the rule effec- tively requires majority-group plaintiffs (and only majority- group plaintiffs) to produce certain types of evidence—such as statistical proof or information about the relevant deci- sionmaker's protected traits—that would not otherwise be required to make out a prima facie case. 87 F. 4th, at 825. This Court has long rejected such “infexible formula- tion[s]” of the prima facie standard in disparate-treatment cases. Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 358 (1977). We do so again today. B Ohio barely contests any of the above. At oral argument, the State repeatedly acknowledged that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision imposes the same prima facie burden on majority-group plaintiffs that it imposes on minority-group plaintiffs.3 Its brief likewise offers no justi- fcation for imposing a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs. Instead, Ohio tries to attack the 3 See Tr. of Oral Arg. 39 (“Ohio agrees it is wrong to hold some litigants to a higher standard because of their protected characteristics”); id., at 44 (endorsing the Solicitor General's position that Title VII imposes the same standards on majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs); id., at 49–51 (confirming that Ames “should have the same burden” as other plaintiffs). 312 AMES v. OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVS.
premise of the question presented by arguing that the “back- ground circumstances” rule does not operate to subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened evidentiary stand- ard at all. Under Ohio's view, the “background circum- stances” requirement “is not an additional prima facie ele- ment” but, rather, “just another way of asking whether the circumstances surrounding an employment decision, if other- wise unexplained, suggest that the decision was because of a protected characteristic.” Brief for Respondent 10. This contention is directly at odds with the Court of Ap- peals' description of the “background circumstances” rule and its application of that requirement in this case. The Court of Appeals explicitly held that “Ames is heterosexual . . . which means she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.” 87 F. 4th, at 825 (emphasis added). And the ensuing passage of the court's opinion confrmed that a higher evidentiary standard was being imposed on Ames because of her sexual orienta- tion. The court stated: “Whether Ames made the necessary showing of `background circumstances' is the principal issue here” because “otherwise Ames's prima-facie case was easy to make.” Ibid. The court then recounted how Ames was qualifed, had been denied a promotion in favor of a gay candidate, and was later demoted in favor of another gay candidate—evidence that would ordinarily satisfy her prima facie burden—before it specifcally faulted Ames for failing to make the “requisite showing of `background cir- cumstances.' ” Ibid. In short, the Sixth Circuit expressly based its holding af- frming summary judgment in favor of the agency on Ames's failure to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard. Ohio's attempt to recast the “background circumstances” rule as an application of the ordinary prima facie standard thus misses the mark by a mile. Ohio also urges this Court to affrm the judgment below on alternative grounds, arguing that Ames's Title VII claims Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 313
Thomas, J., concurring
would fail even absent the “background circumstances” rule. But those alternative arguments would require us to resolve issues that the Court of Appeals did not address in the frst instance and that fall beyond the scope of the question pre- sented. We granted review to consider the validity of the “background circumstances” rule, and we reject that rule for the reasons set forth above. We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio's remaining arguments on remand.
* * * The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of ma- jority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the frst step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority- group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard. It is so ordered. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, concurring. I join the Court's opinion in full. I write separately to highlight the problems that arise when judges create atex- tual legal rules and frameworks. Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, im- pose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The “background circumstances” rule—cor- rectly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon. And, the decision below involves another ex- ample: The Sixth Circuit analyzed Ames's Title VII claim under the three-step framework developed by this Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973). As with the “background circumstances” rule, the McDonnell Douglas framework lacks any basis in the text of Title VII 314 AMES v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
and has proved diffcult for courts to apply. In a case where the parties ask us to do so, I would be willing to consider whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is a workable and useful evidentiary tool. I The Sixth Circuit's “background circumstances” rule im- poses a heightened burden on Title VII plaintiffs who belong to so-called “majority groups.” See 87 F. 4th 822, 825 (2023). The rule requires a majority-group plaintiff to prove, in addi- tion to the standard elements of a Title VII claim, that back- ground circumstances “ `support the suspicion that the de- fendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' ” Ibid. This additional requirement is a par- adigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text. As the Court's opinion explains, the “background circum- stances” rule lacks any basis in the text of Title VII. Ante, at 310. Title VII bars employment discrimination against “any individual” “because of such individual's race, color, reli- gion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). “Thus, to state the obvious, the statute bars discrimination against `any individual' on the grounds specifed therein.” 87 F. 4th, at 827 (Kethledge, J., concurring). The “back- ground circumstances” rule plainly contravenes that statu- tory command by imposing a higher burden on some individ- uals based solely on their membership in a particular demographic group.1 This rule is a product of improper judicial lawmaking. See Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U. S. 22, 38 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[W]hile interpreting and applying substantive law is the essence of the `judicial 1 The “background circumstances” rule is also plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. That guarantee “ `cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to [another].' ” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S. 181, 206 (2023). Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 315
Power' created under Article III of the Constitution, that power does not encompass the making of substantive law”). The rule was created by D. C. Circuit judges in Parker v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 652 F. 2d 1012 (1981). Applying their own “common sense,” these judges determined that extra evidence is required to prove discrimination when a Title VII plaintiff is white. Id., at 1017. In support of this proposition, the court cited only its mistaken understanding of the McDonnell Douglas framework, another judge-made construct, see Part II, infra. 652 F. 2d, at 1017. At no point in its development of this new rule did the court refer to the text of Title VII. The “background circumstances” rule also highlights how judge-made doctrines can be diffcult for courts to apply. Because courts lack an underlying legal authority on which to ground their analysis, there is no principled way to resolve doctrinal ambiguities. The “background circumstances” rule suffers from this faw. A number of courts have de- scribed the rule as “vague and ill-defned.” E. g., Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F. 3d 151, 161 (CA3 1999); see also Stock v. Universal Foods Corp., 817 F. Supp. 1300, 1306 (Md. 1993) (describing the rule as “vague and diffcult to apply”). Most notably, the “background circumstances” rule requires courts to perform the diffcult—if not impossible—task of deciding whether a particular plaintiff qualifes as a member of the so-called “majority.” See Smyer v. Kroger Ltd. Part- nership 1, 2024 WL 1007116, *7 (CA6, Mar. 8, 2024) (Boggs, J., concurring) (explaining that we live “[i]n a world where it has become increasingly diffcult to determine who belongs in the majority”). How a court defnes the boundaries of a population can affect whether a particular person falls into a majority or minority group. Women, for example, make up the majority in the United States as a whole, but not in some States and counties. See Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, L. Blakeslee, Z. Caplan, J. Meyer, M. Rabe, & A. Roberts, Age 316 AMES v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
and Sex Composition: 2020, pp. 2, 8, 14–15 (C2020BR–06, 2023) (Census Bureau). Similarly, women make up the ma- jority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction. Brief for America First Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae 13 (citing Dept. of Labor, Occupations With the Largest Share of Women Workers (Apr. 2025), https:// www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data /occupations/ largest-share- women-workers; Dept. of Labor, Occupations With the Smallest Share of Women Workers (Apr. 2025), https://www .dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations/occupations-smallest- share-women-workers). Defning the “majority” is even more diffcult in the con- text of race, as racial categories tend to be “overbroad” and “imprecise in many ways.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S. 181, 216 (2023).2 “American families have become increas- ingly multicultural,” and “attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.” Id., at 293 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). And, even if courts could identify all the relevant racial groups and their boundaries, courts would still struggle to determine which racial groups make up a majority. Black employees in De- troit, for example, make up a majority in their city, but not in Michigan or the United States at large. See Census Bureau,
2 “The term `Asian,' ” for example, “is extremely broad and masks impor- tant variations by country of origin.” R. Bhopal, Migration, Ethnicity, Race, and Health in Multicultural Societies 18 (2d ed. 2014). Courts have also struggled to determine what it means to be “Hispanic.” See, e. g., Major Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Erie Cty., 134 App. Div. 2d 872, 873–874, 521 N. Y. S. 2d 959, 960 (1987) (upholding an administrative determination that a person with one Mexican grandparent did not qualify as Hispanic); see also M. Lopez, J. Krogstad, & J. Passel, Pew Research Center, Who Is Hispanic? (Sept. 15, 2022), https://web.archive.org/web/20220930084123/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/09/15/who-is-hispanic/ (describing “evolving cultural norms about what it means to be Hispanic or Latino in the U. S. today”). Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 317
Quick Facts: Detroit City, Michigan (July 2024), https://www .census.gov/ quickfacts/fact/ table/detroitcitymichigan/ PST045224; Census Bureau, Quick Facts: Michigan (July 2024), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MI/ PST045224. Similar problems arise with religion. As with sex and race, a particular religion could make up the majority or the minority, depending on how the population is defned. And, in the context of religion, the “background circumstances” rule requires courts to decide both the plaintiff's religion and how the plaintiff's religion compares with the religion of ev- eryone else in the relevant population. Those tasks are for- midable, as Americans hold a wide range of religious beliefs, as well as a wide range of views about the proper way to categorize other religions. Americans have different views, for example, on whether Catholics are Christians. The “ju- dicial process is singularly ill equipped to resolve” these kinds of faith-based “differences.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 715 (1981); see also Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U. S. 732, 761 (2020) (“[D]etermining whether a person is a `co-religionist' will not always be easy”). Courts that have adopted the “background circumstances” rule have offered no guidance on how to decide whether a particular person is a member of the “majority.” See Bish- opp v. District of Columbia, 788 F. 2d 781, 786, n. 5 (CADC 1986) (“[N]either this court nor the Supreme Court has squarely addressed the issue whether minority status for purposes of a prima facie case could have a regional or local meaning”). Instead, judges have been left to their own de- vices to make these challenging determinations. Most courts appear to have sidestepped these diffculties by abandoning the search for neutral principles and instead assuming that the “background circumstances” rule applies only to white and male plaintiffs. The Tenth Circuit, for example, assumed that the rule applies to “white plaintiff[s]” 318 AMES v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
on the ground that white individuals are “members of a historically favored group.” Taken v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 125 F. 3d 1366, 1369 (1997). Similarly, the D. C. Circuit applied the rule to a white plaintiff while acknowl- edging that “[o]f course whites are in the minority in the District of Columbia.” Bishopp, 788 F. 2d, at 786, and n. 5. In other words, courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII's antidiscrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so. Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution, under which “there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.” Ada- rand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 239 (1995) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see n. 1, supra. Thankfully, today's decision obviates the need for courts to engage in the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race” or any other protected trait. League of United Latin Amer- ican Citizens v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399, 511 (2006) (Roberts, C. J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part). I simply observe that the “background circumstances” rule is emblematic of the serious challenges that can arise when judges invent atextual requirements.3
3 The “ `background circumstances' ” rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an “ `unusual employer' ” would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. 87 F. 4th 822, 825 (CA6 2023). But, a number of this Nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups. American employers have long been “obsessed” with “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives and affrmative action plans. Brief for America First Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae 8. Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrim- ination against those perceived to be in the majority. Harvard College, 600 U. S., at 258 (Thomas, J., concurring); Preston v. Wisconsin Health Fund, 397 F. 3d 539, 542 (CA7 2005) (Posner, J., for the court) (explaining Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 319
For too long, that rule put “a deep scratch across [the] sur- face” of Title VII. 87 F. 4th, at 827 (Kethledge, J., concur- ring). I am pleased that the Court rejects it in full today. II This case involves a second judge-made rule. Relying on Circuit precedent, the Sixth Circuit applied the three-step framework developed by this Court in McDonnell Douglas to determine whether Ames's Title VII claim should survive summary judgment. The Court today assumes without de- ciding that the McDonnell Douglas framework is an appro- priate tool for making that determination. Ante, at 308, n. 2. But, the judge-made McDonnell Douglas framework has no basis in the text of Title VII. And, as I have previously explained, lower courts' extension of this doctrine into the summary-judgment context has caused “signifcant confu- sion” and “troubling outcomes on the ground.” Hittle v. City of Stockton, 604 U. S. –––, ––– – ––– (2025) (opinion dis- senting from denial of certiorari). In an appropriate case, this Court should consider whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is an appropriate tool to evaluate Title VII claims at summary judgment. A The McDonnell Douglas framework is a judge-made evi- dentiary “tool.” Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of Afri- can American-Owned Media, 589 U. S. 327, 340 (2020). It was originally developed for courts to use in a bench trial. Hittle, 604 U. S., at ––– (opinion of Thomas, J.). Its in- tended purpose was to help “bring the litigants and the court expeditiously and fairly to th[e] ultimate question” in a Title VII case—that is, whether “the defendant intentionally dis- criminated against the plaintiff.” Texas Dept. of Commu- nity Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 253 (1981). that companies are “under pressure from affrmative action plans” to dis- criminate in favor of members of so-called minority groups). 320 AMES v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
The framework has three steps, which this Court has sum- marized as follows: “First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination.” Id., at 252–253. “Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant `to articulate some legitimate, nondis- criminatory reason for the employee's rejection.' ” Id., at 253 (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 802). “Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defend- ant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrim- ination.” 450 U. S., at 253. The McDonnell Douglas framework was made “out of whole cloth.” Hittle, 604 U. S., at ––– (opinion of Thomas, J.). Its contours have no basis in the text of Title VII or any other source of law. And, as far as I can tell, this Court has never attempted to justify it on textual grounds. Ibid.; see Tynes v. Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 88 F. 4th 939, 952 (CA11 2023) (Newsom, J., concurring) (“There's certainly no textual warrant in Title VII or the Federal Rules for so elaborate a scheme, and so far as I know, no one has ever even sought to justify it as rooted in either”); Griffth v. Des Moines, 387 F. 3d 733, 740 (CA8 2004) (Magnuson, J., concur- ring specially) (“Absent from th[e] opinion was any justifca- tion or authority for this scheme”).
B The McDonnell Douglas framework exemplifies how judge-made doctrines can have amorphous bounds. Al- though originally designed for the bench-trial context, the McDonnell Douglas framework has over the years “taken on a life of its own.” Tynes, 88 F. 4th, at 952 (Newsom, J., concurring). It is today “the presumptive means of resolv- ing Title VII cases at summary judgment.” Ibid. And, that development has come without this Court ever consider- Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 321
ing—much less holding—that the framework is an appro- priate tool for the summary-judgment task. Far from extending the framework to new contexts, this Court has taken steps to “limi[t] the relevancy and applicabil- ity of the McDonnell Douglas framework.” T. Tymkovich, The Problem With Pretext, 85 Denver U. L. Rev. 503, 507 (2008) (Tymkovich). For example, this Court has held that McDonnell Douglas is “inapplicable” when the plaintiff re- lies on direct evidence to prove his claim. Trans World Air- lines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111, 121 (1985). The Court has also held that the framework does not apply in Title VII mixed-motive cases. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228, 258 (1989) (plurality opinion). We have said that the framework is inapplicable at the pleading stage, Swier- kiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 508 (2002), and in deciding post-trial motions, Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S. 711, 715 (1983). This Court has further explained that a plaintiff need not satisfy the frst step of the framework at trial. Ibid. And, we have strongly sug- gested that the framework should not be referenced in jury instructions because it is too confusing. Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U. S. 421, 444–445, and n. 13 (2013). Notwithstanding this Court's steps to limit McDonnell Douglas, it is now the framework that “courts typically apply” “to determine whether the plaintiff has proffered suf- fcient evidence to survive summary judgment.” Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hospital, Inc., 814 F. 3d 769, 776 (CA6 2016). The reason for this expansion is unclear. This Court has only once addressed the application of McDonnell Douglas to Title VII cases at summary judgment, and it held that the framework did not apply. See Trans World Air- lines, 469 U. S., at 121.4 But, however we got here, McDon- 4 To be sure, this Court has assumed without deciding that the McDon- nell Douglas framework applies at summary judgment in contexts outside of Title VII. See, e. g., O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U. S. 308, 311 (1996) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). But, 322 AMES v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
nell Douglas now undeniably plays a prominent role in Title VII cases at summary judgment.
C I seriously doubt that the McDonnell Douglas framework is a suitable tool for evaluating Title VII claims at summary judgment. In my view, the framework is incompatible with the summary-judgment standard; it fails to encompass the various ways in which a plaintiff could prove his claim; it requires courts to maintain artifcial distinctions between di- rect and circumstantial evidence; and it has created outsized judicial confusion. 1 My frst concern is that the McDonnell Douglas frame- work is incompatible with the summary-judgment standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Rule 56(a) requires a court to grant summary judgment when the movant establishes that there is “no genuine dis- pute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” But, “the language this Court has used to describe the [McDonnell Douglas] frame- work does not neatly track” that rule. Hittle, 604 U. S., at ––– (opinion of Thomas, J.). Namely, the framework does not speak in terms of “genuine dispute[s]” regarding the facts. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(a). Instead, it speaks in terms of “proving” facts “by the preponderance of the evi- dence.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 252–253. That difference is signifcant because “a plaintiff need not establish or prove any elements—by a preponderance or otherwise—to survive summary judgment.” Hittle, 604 U. S., at ––– (opinion of Thomas, J.). In my view, requiring a plaintiff to satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework—as this Court has de-
as far as I can tell, this Court has never had occasion to decide whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is a useful or appropriate tool for eval- uating any kind of claim at summary judgment. Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 323
scribed it—requires a plaintiff to prove too much at sum- mary judgment. If courts are to apply McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment, they must modify the framework to match the ap- plicable legal standard. For example, at the third step, the question for the court cannot be whether the plaintiff has “prove[d] by a preponderance of the evidence that the legiti- mate reasons offered by the defendant . . . were a pretext for discrimination.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. Instead, the plaintiff need only present suffcient evidence to create a “genuine dispute as to” whether the employer's stated rea- son was pretextual. Rule 56(a).
2 A second problem with the McDonnell Douglas frame- work is that it fails to capture all the ways in which a plain- tiff can prove a Title VII claim. See Hittle, 604 U. S., at ––– (opinion of Thomas, J.). McDonnell Douglas “sets forth cri- teria that, if satisfed, will allow a plaintiff to prove a Title VII violation.” 604 U. S., at –––. But, satisfying McDon- nell Douglas is “not the only way” to prevail under Title VII. 604 U. S., at –––. For example, the text of Title VII provides that “an unlaw- ful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(m) (emphasis added). In other words, a plaintiff may establish a Title VII violation by proving that an employer took an employment action in part because of an unlawful motive. Yet, the McDonnell Douglas framework requires a plain- tiff to prove that “the legitimate reasons offered by the de- fendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. That require- ment demands more than the text of Title VII: Under the 324 AMES v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
statute, a plaintiff need not establish that the employer's stated reason for its action was wholly pretextual. A plain- tiff could prevail even if the employer's stated reason was part of the reason for the employer's action. It follows that a plaintiff's inability to satisfy McDonnell Douglas's third step does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff's claim should fail. In view of that problem, this Court has held that the McDonnell Douglas framework should not be used in cases where the plaintiff argues that the employer oper- ated with mixed motives. Price Waterhouse, 490 U. S., at 258 (plurality opinion). Instead, the framework appears to be limited to cases where the plaintiff argues that discrimi- nation was the sole factor infuencing the employer's deci- sion. But, “[n]othing in the text of [Title VII] indicates that Congress intended courts to maintain this dichotomy.” Tymkovich 522. And, even in so-called single-motive cases, McDonnell Douglas fails to capture all the ways in which a plaintiff could prevail. See Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 F. 4th 1300, 1310 (CA11 2023) (observing that a plaintiff can prove a Title VII claim without satisfying McDonnell Doug- las's three steps). A plaintiff who cannot establish a prima facie case at the frst step or pretext at the third step can still prevail under Title VII so long as his evidence raises a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. The “ulti- mate question” is simply whether “the defendant intention- ally discriminated against the plaintiff.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. 3 Another problem with the McDonnell Douglas framework is that it requires courts to draw and maintain an artifcial distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. This Court has held that “the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.” Trans World Airlines, 469 U. S., at 121. Our precedent therefore requires courts to “make the often Cite as: 605 U. S. 303 (2025) 325
subtle and diffcult distinction between `direct' and `indirect' or `circumstantial' evidence.” Price Waterhouse, 490 U. S., at 291 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). In most civil litigation contexts, courts have no occasion to distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence. “[I]n any lawsuit, the plaintiff may prove his case by direct or circumstantial evidence,” or some combination thereof. Aikens, 460 U. S., at 714, n. 3. And, the law makes no dis- tinction regarding the weight or value assigned to either kind of evidence. “The reason for treating circumstantial and direct evidence alike,” we have explained, “is both clear and deep rooted: `Circumstantial evidence is not only suff- cient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persua- sive than direct evidence.' ” Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U. S. 90, 100 (2003). That “ `[c]onventional rul[e] of civil litigation' ”—that a plaintiff can proceed with direct or circumstantial evidence— applies with full force to Title VII cases. Id., at 99. Yet, McDonnell Douglas requires courts to determine at the out- set the nature of the evidence before it, which often prolongs litigation instead of streamlining it. See, e. g., Othman v. Country Club Hills, 671 F. 3d 672, 675 (CA8 2012). Because a Title VII plaintiff can prove his claim with either direct or circumstantial evidence, I am skeptical of a framework that requires courts to perform the “diffcult” task of characteriz- ing each piece of evidence. Price Waterhouse, 490 U. S., at 291 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
4 That the McDonnell Douglas framework “has befuddled” courts “[s]ince its inception” is yet another reason to question it. Griffth, 387 F. 3d, at 746 (Magnuson, J., concurring spe- cially). Six years after this Court created the framework, the First Circuit observed that “the subtleties of McDonnell Douglas are confusing” and “have caused considerable diff- culty for judges of all levels.” Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 326 AMES v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
F. 2d 1003, 1016 (CA1 1979). That early confusion never dis- sipated. A decade later, Justice Kennedy made the same observation, explaining that “[l]ower courts long have had difficulty applying McDonnell Douglas.” Price Water- house, 490 U. S., at 291 (dissenting opinion). About 20 years after that, Judge Tymkovich too observed that “[l]ower courts have struggled to implement the burden-shifting framework for over thirty years.” Tymkovich 529. The McDonnell Douglas framework has been on the books for over 50 years now, and courts still report “continuing confu- sion.” Tynes, 88 F. 4th, at 945; see also Hittle, 604 U. S., at ––– (opinion of Thomas, J.) (collecting examples). That those who have carefully grappled with the framework for decades cannot make sense of it suggests that the framework is unworkable. D This case did not present the question whether the Mc- Donnell Douglas framework is an appropriate tool for evalu- ating Title VII claims at summary judgment. In a case where that issue is squarely before us, I would consider whether the framework should be used for that purpose. In the meantime, litigants and lower courts are free to proceed without the McDonnell Douglas framework. This Court has never required anyone to use it. And, district courts are well equipped to resolve summary judgment mo- tions without it. Every day—and in almost every context except the Title VII context—district courts across the country resolve summary judgment motions by applying the straightforward text of Rule 56. In my view, it might be- hoove courts and litigants to take that same approach in Title VII cases. * * * Atextual, judge-created legal rules have a tendency to generate complexity, confusion, and erroneous results. I am pleased that the Court correctly rejects the atextual “back- ground circumstances” rule today. Reporter’s Note
The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation. The following additional edits were made:
None