Whether a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must show "background circumstances" to support the suspicion that an employer discriminates against the majority to satisfy the prima facie burden under Title VII. This requirement was applied by the Sixth Circuit to petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman. The Court must determine if this heightened evidentiary standard is consistent with federal law and precedent.

• Petitioner argues she was denied a management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.
• She contends that the "background circumstances" rule imposes an unlawful heightened evidentiary burden on members of majority groups.
• She asserts that such a requirement is not supported by the text of the statute or Supreme Court precedent.

• Respondent argues that the "background circumstances" rule is not an additional prima facie element but simply a method of determining if employment decisions suggest discrimination based on a protected characteristic.
• Respondent contends that the rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened evidentiary standard.
• Respondent further argues that petitioner's Title VII claims would fail even if the "background circumstances" rule were not applied.

• The Court held that the Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and existing case law.
• The Court reasoned that 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(a)(1) prohibits discrimination against "any individual," drawing no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs.
• Relying on *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*, the Court noted that discriminatory preference for any group, whether minority or majority, is what Congress proscribed.
• The Court cited *McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.* to emphasize that Title VII prohibits racial discrimination against White employees under the same standards applicable to non-White employees.
• The Court found that the rule violates the instruction in *Teamsters v. United States* to avoid "inflexible" or "ritualistic" applications of the prima facie standard.
• The Court rejected respondent's attempt to recast the rule as a standard inquiry, noting the Sixth Circuit explicitly required petitioner to make a showing "in addition to the usual ones."
• The Court concluded that because Title VII focuses on individuals rather than groups, courts cannot impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.