(The Lion) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case that could make it easier for members of non-minority groups, such as whites and straight people, to sue over workplace discrimination.

The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centers around Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who has worked at the Ohio agency since 2004. Ames, who received promotions and favorable performance reviews over the years, claims that after she was assigned to a gay supervisor in 2017, she was discriminated against for being straight.

Ames applied for a promotion to become Bureau Chief in 2019, but was denied the promotion, as the department instead offered it to a gay woman who “started after Ames, did not originally apply for the promotion, and ‘lacked the minimum qualifications’ for the job,” according to a legal filing for Ames. In addition to not getting the promotion, she was forced to choose between a demotion – which would nearly halve her wages – or losing her job, Ames claims.

“In her place, the Department hired a gay man as the new Program Administrator, despite that individual, like the woman who had obtained the Bureau Chief position over Ames, also ‘being neither qualified nor having formally applied’ for the role,” according to a court filing.

The demotion and pay cut left Ames feeling “shocked and hurt and humiliated,” she told Reuters. “That’s how I came to feel that I was being discriminated on because I was straight and pushed aside for them.”

Ames sued, alleging that she had been a victim of discrimination for her sexual orientation, in violation of federal employment laws. Yet the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case, as the court was one of five appellate courts which requires “majority-group plaintiffs” – such as a white, straight person– to take additional steps to prove discrimination cases.

“Specifically, Ames must show ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,’” the Sixth Circuit noted in its ruling. To prove “background circumstances,” Ames would need to show evidence that the minority group – in this case, Ames’ gay supervisor – made the promotion decision, or Ames could demonstrate a “pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group.”

If the Supreme Court rules in Ames’ favor, it could open the door to a slew of so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits from employees who feel they have been passed over in favor of minority candidates because of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices.

Dismantling DEI

The case will be heard by the high court as the Trump administration has been working to dismantle DEI, and as national pushback to “reverse discrimination” has intensified following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2023 to strike down race-based affirmative action.

“Discrimination is discrimination,” Ames told Reuters. “This will hopefully be able to help anyone who feels they’ve been discriminated on to get a fair shake in the courtroom and not have to go to the lengths that I had to go to.”

The Ohio Department of Youth Services, in a court filing, argued that Ames’ lack of promotion had to do with “broader restructuring,” rather than her sexual orientation.

“At the end of the day, Ames has not identified a single piece of evidence that suggests that sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decision at issue in her promotion claim,” a brief noted. “She did not point to any evidence that suggested that the relevant decision makers knew about her sexual orientation – or about the sexual orientation of the woman who they decided to hire.”