One of the most important employment law decisions affecting employers in recent years is Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025).
In Ames, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” test previously applied by several federal courts to so-called majority-group discrimination claims. Under that test, plaintiffs who were members of majority groups were often required to satisfy additional evidentiary burdens before proceeding with discrimination claims.
The Court held that Title VII does not support imposing different standards on different categories of plaintiffs. Writing for a unanimous Court, the Justices emphasized that Title VII protects “any individual” from unlawful employment discrimination and that the same legal standards apply regardless of the race, sex, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic of any employee. The legal implications of Ames extend well beyond litigation strategy and bolster claims of reverse discrimination.
The post-Ames era highlights employment policies that must be carefully evaluated to prohibit the appearance of providing preferences, exclusions, or employment advantages based on protected characteristics. As plaintiff attorneys increasingly rely on Ames to challenge heightened burdened discriminatory workplace practices, employers should anticipate greater scrutiny of race-based or sex-based preferences. For employers, Ames underscores the importance of reviewing employee handbook language and workplace practices to safeguard equal employment opportunities.
Employee resource groups (ERGs) remain valuable tools for promoting organizational culture. ERGs often support employee engagement, networking, professional development, mentorship, retention, and leadership development. However, recent federal enforcement and litigation trends have prompted employers to reevaluate how ERGs are funded and structured.
Legal concerns may arise when participation, leadership opportunities, mentoring programs, scholarships, sponsorships, networking opportunities, or other workplace benefits are restricted or preferentially allocated based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.
For public employers, constitutional concerns may arise under Equal Protection principles when government-sponsored programs classify individuals based on protected traits such as race or sex. Many employee resource groups may use categories such as socially disadvantaged, geographically disadvantaged, or first generation rather than protected characteristics.
For public employers, “socially disadvantaged” may be deemed unlawful discrimination if it links benefit eligibility to membership in a socially disadvantaged group defined by racial, ethnic, or gender identity. For private employers, the primary legal framework remains Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related anti-discrimination laws. The concern is not the existence of ERGs specifically, but whether participation criteria or associated employment benefits create disparate treatment based on protected characteristics.
Based on the foregoing, employers are responding to these developments by emphasizing broad participation, professional development, shared interests, and business objectives that remain accessible to all employees.
Tracy Sanders Rucker, Esq. is the founder of Natural Hair and the Law, an organization dedicated to legal education about hair texture discrimination in the workplace and schools. CeriFi LegalEdge is proud to partner with Natural Hair and the Law to offer a comprehensive CROWN Act continuing legal education virtual library.
