Statement from EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas Celebrating the Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling in Ames Restoring Evenhanded Application of Title VII

I applaud the Supreme Court for unanimously confirming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “establish[es] the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group” in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Slip Op. at 6. The Court resoundingly dispelled the common misnomer of “reverse” discrimination, making clear that discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic is unlawful “discrimination,” no matter the identity of who engaged in the discrimination or which workers were harmed or benefited.

As acknowledged in the Court’s opinion, the EEOC has taken this colorblind, group-neutral position for at least 50 years. Id. (citing EEOC’s position since the 1970s). EEOC’s support for this core position of federal antidiscrimination law has remained consistent regardless of party control or administration. Indeed, last year, a bipartisan panel of Commissioners—including myself—unanimously supported an amicus brief in Ames advocating for the position that the Supreme Court ultimately adopted this week.

In Ames, the Supreme Court rejected the “background circumstances” test, a judge-made doctrine adopted by several Circuit courts. The “background circumstances” test had required “majority-group” plaintiffs to show their employer was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Id. at 3, 5. The Court correctly concluded that this test was contrary to Title VII’s plain text as well as the Court’s precedents. Id. 5-6.

Moreover, as Justice Thomas observed in his concurrence in Ames, the “background circumstances” test also was “nonsensical” because it “assume[d] that only an ‘unusual employer’ would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. 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 affirmative action plans. Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.” Thomas, J., concurring, slip. Op. at 6 n.3 (cleaned up).

Under my leadership, the EEOC is committed to dismantling identity politics that have plagued our employment civil rights laws, by dispelling the notion that only the ‘right sort of’ plaintiff is protected by Title VII. In the wake of Ames, there can be no more confusion. Following this week’s decision, the flawed “background circumstances” test no longer shields employers—including “our Nation’s largest and most prestigious”—in any jurisdiction nationwide from any race or sex discrimination that may arise from those employers’ DEI initiatives.

Thoughtful employers will take note and review their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII. Likewise, employees who have experienced DEI-discrimination at work should be encouraged by the Court’s ruling. The EEOC stands ready to help employers comply with their obligations not to discriminate. But, where necessary, the agency also is prepared to root out discrimination where it remains entrenched.

*  *  *

The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against private companies and other private employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division; the EEOC is responsible for investigating public sector charges before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.