The Supreme Court has outlined a three-step test for discrimination claims. At the first step – the one at issue in Ames’s case – a plaintiff must produce enough evidence to support an inference that the employer intended to discriminate. This is generally, Jackson wrote, not a high bar: “A plaintiff may satisfy it simply by presenting evidence ‘that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.’” But the court of appeals in this case, Jackson continued, incorrectly added an additional requirement, directing Ames to “establish ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’”

The 6th Circuit’s rule, Jackson wrote, is inconsistent with the text of the federal employment discrimination law, which bars discrimination against everyone – without distinguishing between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. “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.”

The Supreme Court’s cases, Jackson added, also make clear that the test for showing discrimination in a case like Ames’s “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” “The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle,” she concluded.