The Supreme Court Ruling This Month That You NEED To Know

_{Disclaimer: This information is provided for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. For recommendations tailored to your ERG program, please consult your organization’s legal or HR counsel.}

Wanted to share the latest legal ruling on my radar - Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. Until now, anyone in a “majority” group (think white or heterosexual employees) had to dig up extra proof (“background circumstances”) before a Title VII claim could even get off the ground. The Court rejected that rule outright, ruling that Title VII’s plain text treats “any individual” the same, no matter their group identity.

In order to understand what I’m saying, let’s break down the basics here…

The McDonnell Douglas Framework

When there’s no “smoking-gun” memo proving bias, courts use the McDonnell Douglas test (a simple, three-step formula) to decide whether someone’s discrimination claim can move forward. Here’s how it works:

• Prima facie (Latin for “at first glance”) means the basic facts you need to show right away to raise a valid claim. Think of it as your “starter checklist.”

• Under McDonnell Douglas, once you check off those basics, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate reason and then you get a chance to show that reason is just a cover for discrimination.

Your Prima Facie Starter Checklist

1. Protected status

   You belong to a group protected by law (for example, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation).

2. Qualification

   You met the employer’s requirements (skills, experience, or performance level needed for the role).

3. Adverse outcome

   You faced a negative action (denied a raise, passed over for promotion, unjust discipline) while someone outside your group did not.

Clearing these three steps gets your claim past the initial gate. From there, your employer must explain their decision, and you can show that explanation masks bias. 

Before, you couldn’t just show the usual three facts (protected status, qualification, adverse action); you also had to dig up extra “background circumstances” (like statistics or comments by the decision-maker) to suggest your employer really was the rare type that discriminates against majority groups. Now that extra step is gone and everyone just follows the same three-point checklist mentioned above.

Why this matters for ERGs

• No more special case hurdles. All employees alleging bias follow the same prima facie path under McDonnell Douglas.

• Watch for reverse‐discrimination claims. With the extra evidence requirement gone, we can expect a rise in suits by majority‐group members who feel shut out by DEI efforts (and by proxy, ERGs).

• The EEOC is on high alert. They’ve made clear “reverse” discrimination is just discrimination. Enforcement may ramp up.

What I’ve changed already

• Language: I’ve removed “underrepresented” from every ERG document I oversee. If Title VII now makes no distinction between majority and minority, our language needs to follow suit. Calling a group “underrepresented” in policy can unintentionally paint some members as less “equal” under our own rules.

• Public channels: Moving ERGs into open Slack or Teams spaces means there’s no perceived barrier an any employee joining. That transparency makes it impossible to argue we’re hiding bias behind closed doors.

• No forced identification: Dropping mandatory sign-up forms before entry removes any appearance of gatekeeping. If someone claims they were excluded because they didn’t fit a profile, we can point to an optional survey taken only after they joined.

• Equal support for majority-group ERGs: Backing ERGs for majority groups shows we’re not favoring one identity over another (I know, I know…most fundamentally don’t believe in this, but it’s really not a matter of beliefs at this point). By treating every potential ERG for any protected class the same, we eliminate any argument that we only build spaces for certain communities.

I’d much rather see a majority-group ERG alongside other ERG communities (so anyone can find their tribe) than no community at all.

If you’ve been wrestling with ERG leads who resist public Slack or Teams channels, now is the moment to push the shift. Try this blurb with your leads:

“Our ERG is moving to a public channel so every employee sees resources, events, and decisions in real time. This change reflects our commitment to equal participation and helps us demonstrate, at every step, that we welcome feedback from all corners of the company.”

or if you want something more blunt:

“Heads up: recent legal changes mean we need full transparency in our ERG spaces, so we’re opening all channels to everyone. This is about protecting the program—not watering down what we do. In fact, it forces us to lean into better, more inclusive programming that shows we value every voice. Details coming shortly on how we will approach this change.”

…and then reference the YouTube video that I put out on this a few months ago.

Hope this helps ✌🏿

Maceo