AI Predicts Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling on Workplace Discrimination

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case where a heterosexual employee claimed her employer discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The key legal question isn’t whether she has a claim but whether plaintiffs in the so-called “majority” must clear an additional hurdle—proving “background circumstances” that show their employer is an unusual one that discriminates against the majority.

I don’t have a crystal ball, but maybe artificial intelligence does. I uploaded the oral argument transcript and asked three separate AI assistants (Harvey.AI, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Copilot) to predict how each justice will rule and why. All three foresee a unanimous decision to scrap the “background circumstances” test. Here’s why:

---

How the Justices May Rule

Chief Justice John Roberts

• Harvey.AI: Focused on whether Title VII should apply the same standards to all plaintiffs, regardless of majority/minority status. Skeptical of the Sixth Circuit’s additional burden.

Justice Clarence Thomas

• ChatGPT: Questioned whether the Sixth Circuit’s approach was an extension of precedent or an unjustified extra burden. Suggested Title VII should apply neutrally.

Justice Samuel Alito

• Copilot: Explored whether the Sixth Circuit’s approach could be applied at later stages of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Likely to clarify the uniform application of Title VII.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

• Harvey.AI: Highlighted that discrimination must be a motivating factor. Questioned the necessity of the additional burden imposed by the Sixth Circuit.

Justice Elena Kagan

• ChatGPT: Challenged Ohio’s lawyer on whether the Sixth Circuit had applied a different standard based on Ames’s sexual orientation. Seemed unconvinced by Ohio’s justification.

Justice Neil Gorsuch

• Copilot: Focused on whether McDonnell Douglas should apply at summary judgment. Likely to favor eliminating the “background circumstances” rule to ensure equal treatment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

• Harvey.AI: Suggested that Title VII should apply equally regardless of the plaintiff’s characteristics. Agreed that the Sixth Circuit’s additional burden was unnecessary.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett

• ChatGPT: Asked whether removing the Sixth Circuit’s rule would create a flood of litigation but seemed satisfied that courts already handle these cases appropriately.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

• Copilot: Clarified the requirements for a prima facie case and the burden-shifting framework. Likely to support reversing the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

---

Final Verdict: A Likely Unanimous Ruling

While no one can predict the future with certainty (except, Dallas won’t win the Super Bowl next season), all three AI models anticipate a unanimous or near-unanimous decision in favor of Ames. The Court is expected to strike down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule as inconsistent with Title VII.

This ruling would reaffirm that workplace discrimination protections apply equally to all employees—majority or minority—without artificial evidentiary hurdles. Employers should take note: a neutral standard is the only standard that counts.