Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Bias Doesn’t Care If You’re Straight. Now the Supreme Court Doesn’t Either.
Heterosexual employees don’t have to clear a higher hurdle than gay employees to claim discrimination. The Supreme Court just said so—unanimously.
This case could reshape how Title VII claims are litigated—and it’s one employers should be paying close attention to.
TL;DR:
The Supreme Court struck down a rule that forced so-called majority-group plaintiffs—like straight or male or white employees—to meet a higher bar when alleging workplace discrimination. The Justices reaffirmed that Title VII protects individuals, not just historically underrepresented groups. That’s a big deal for employers navigating hiring, promotions, and workplace policies.
The Facts: Same statute, different burden?
A heterosexual woman sued after being passed over for promotion and later demoted—each time in favor of gay colleagues. The Sixth Circuit applied a rule requiring her to show “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was the rare type that discriminates against majority-group employees. That extra burden—one not imposed on most Title VII plaintiffs—ultimately sunk her claim at the summary judgment stage.
The Law: Everyone gets the same shot at proving discrimination
The Supreme Court said loud and clear: it doesn’t matter if you’re part of a minority group or not—Title VII protects everyone.
Until now, some courts (like the Sixth Circuit here) had a rule that made it harder for straight, white, or other so-called “majority-group” employees to bring discrimination claims. If you weren’t part of a historically disadvantaged group, you had to jump through an extra hoop: proving that your employer was the rare kind that discriminates against people like you.
That extra burden? The Supreme Court said it has no basis in the law.
Justice Jackson, writing for the unanimous Court, made a few key points:
- The law protects individuals—not groups. Title VII says employers can’t discriminate against any individual because of their race, sex, or other protected trait. It doesn’t say anything about applying different rules based on whether you’re in the majority or minority.
- The first step in a discrimination case isn’t supposed to be hard. A plaintiff just needs to show some basic facts that suggest discrimination may have been at play. The Court said that adding extra hurdles for some plaintiffs goes against how this framework is supposed to work.
- This kind of one-size-fits-all test doesn’t belong. The Court has said before that there’s no rigid checklist for proving discrimination—it depends on the situation. Requiring every “majority-group” plaintiff to clear a special evidentiary bar was exactly the kind of rigid rule the Court has warned against.
The state tried to argue this wasn’t really a separate rule—it was just another way of looking at the facts. But the Supreme Court read the lower court’s decision differently: it clearly applied a tougher standard because of the plaintiff’s identity.
So the Court threw that rule out and sent the case back to be reviewed under the correct legal standard—one that treats all workers equally under Title VII.
For the Law Nerds: Justice Thomas lights into McDonnell Douglas
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred fully in the result—but used the opportunity to question the entire McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green framework, which has long been used in employment discrimination cases.
If you’re not a civil procedure nerd, here’s the short version:
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green created a burden-shifting test for Title VII cases where a plaintiff doesn’t have direct evidence of discrimination. Under that test, the plaintiff first has to make a basic showing that something suspicious happened (a “prima facie case”). Then the employer must offer a legitimate reason for its actions. Finally, the plaintiff gets a chance to show that reason was just a cover for discrimination.
Justice Thomas thinks that whole approach has problems.
He called it a judge-made construct “made out of whole cloth,” noted it has no basis in the actual text of Title VII, and warned that it distorts how courts handle summary judgment. According to Justice Thomas, McDonnell Douglas has confused judges, produced inconsistent results, and forces artificial distinctions between “direct” and “circumstantial” evidence that don’t exist in other areas of civil litigation.
In his view, courts should resolve these cases under the regular summary judgment rules—without extra layers of judicial invention.
He closed by suggesting that in a future case, the Court should revisit whether McDonnell Douglas should be used at all.
Final Thought
The Court didn’t just knock out a procedural technicality—it reaffirmed that Title VII protects everyone. The right to be free from discrimination at work doesn’t depend on your demographics. And the Court made clear: courts can’t apply different legal standards based on who’s bringing the claim.
For employers, this is a good time to review internal complaint procedures, ensure consistency in how concerns are addressed, and reinforce that your policies protect all employees—regardless of background. Consistency, fairness, and documentation remain your best tools for minimizing legal risk.