It's Mark, and welcome back to another episode. Uh today we're talking about Ames versus Ohio, and it's already changing the game for workers across the country. In the four months since the Supreme Court decided Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, district courts have begun to s uh citing it to reject dismissal arguments that once doomed reverse discrimination cases. Law firms are already advising clients that Ames is binding across the country. The speed of adoption underscores how quickly this ruling is reshaping the legal landscape. When the court handed down Ames in June of 2025, it didn't just issue another Title VII decision. It dismantled a procedural trapdoor that for decades had kept thousands of workers from even having their day in court. In five federal circuits, employees from majorities groups had faced a special heightened burden. Prove quote unquote background circumstances showing your employer was the kind the rare kind that discriminates against people like you. Without that, cases were dismissed before any judge ever looked at the facts. The court name struck down the rule impacting five different circuits unanimously. Title VII, Justice Jackson wrote, protects any individual from discrimination because of protected traits, it does not carve the workface into workforce into two classes with different procedural hurdles. Four months later, the difference is already visible. Cases that once have been dead on arrival are now making it into courtrooms. The case began when Marlene Ames, a longtime employee of Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleged that she was passed over for promotion and later demoted because of her sexual orientation. Her former role was filled by a gay man. Ames, who was heterosexual, brought suit under Title VII. The trial court dismissed her case under the Sixth Circuit precedent, holding that the majority plaintiffs must show background circumstances, proving their employer was the rare kind that discriminates against them. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, relying on decades of its own reverse discrimination case law. At the Supreme Court, the justices rejected that standard unanimously. Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, emphasizing the statute's text. Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual because of such individuals' race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Nothing in the statute, she explained, supports a special burden for plaintiffs based on a majority or minority status. The ruling vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment and sent the case back to for further proceedings. More importantly, it resolved a split among federal circuits and announced a uniform rule. All Title VII plaintiffs stand at the same starting line. No group faces a higher procedural bar simply because of who they are. The effect of Ames becomes clearest when you look back at real cases where employees brought discrimination claims but were turned away. Not because of weak evidence, but because the courts applied the now defunct background circumstances rule. In Harding versus Gray, a DC circuit case from 1993, Caspar Harding, a black federal employee, alleged that he had been denied promotion in favor of a less qualified colleague because of his sex. Instead of weighing his proof, the court dismissed the case outright, reasoning that as a man, he had to show background circumstances, proving that his employer was usually prone to discriminate against men. Harding never had the chance to have a jury hear his story. After Ames, his claim would have proceeded on the same footing as any other Title VII claim, judged on evidence rather than blocked at the door. In another case, Zambetti v. Cayuga Community College, the Sixth Circuit 2002, shows how entrenched this doctrine became. Anthony Zambetti, a white police officer, employed by the college, alleged that minority officers with weaker credentials were promoted ahead of him. The Sixth Circuit dismissed his suit, holding that he had not demonstrated the background circumstances needed for a majority plaintiff claim. Zambetti's allegations about comparators and promotion practices never saw the light of discovery. Today, in the wake of Ames, that case would be allowed to move forward, and the college would have to defend its choice with facts, not rely on heightened procedural shield. The pattern repeated in McQuery v. Board of Education in the City of Chicago, a Seventh Circuit case from 2008. John McCarey, a longtime male school administrator, alleged he was consistently passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified women. He pointed to his strong performance record and the comparative resume of those chosen instead. Yet the Seventh Circuit imposed the background circumstances test and held McCarry had failed to show that the district was one of the rare employers that discriminates against men. His evidence was never tested. Under Ames, that kind of claim would no longer be dismissed on principle. It would be judged by whether McCarry would act uh could actually prove his allegations. These cases show that human costs of the old doctrine, employees with plausible evidence of discrimination never reached a courtroom. With Ames, their legal theories are no longer treated as second class. They may not all win, but they are entitled to the same rules as everyone else. That is the change. The scale of the shift is staggering. Five circuits, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, tenth, and DC circuits, had entrenched the heightened test. That meant for more than 30 years, workers across 22 states and the District of Columbia faced a steeper climb to even file a discrimination claim. Decisions like Harding, Zambetti, and McGarry became routine citations for trial courts, tossing the majority plaintiff cases before discovery. Now those cases stand as markers of an old regime the court has unanimously swept away. In just months, briefs filed across the country already cite Ames as controlling authority, and district courts have begun rejecting dismissal arguments based on background circumstances. That speed of adoption puts Ames in rare company. Its impact is immediate and its reach is national. For workers who were told your case won't survive in this circuit, the answer is now different. Whether you are a man alleging sex discrimination, a Christian alleging a religious bias, or a head of sexual employee alleging orientation-based stereotyping, your claim is entitled to the same legal standard as anyone else. You still must prove your case, but you are no longer blocked before you begin. That's the essence of AIMS. It didn't change the definition of discrimination, it changed access. It has leveled out the starting line, and for countless employees who never got to the present uh present their evidence, that change is monumental. Thank you, and hope you enjoyed the episode.