In what could be a major blow to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to dismantle discrimination law standards that place an unfair burden on straight, white Americans. The court heard arguments Wednesday in the case of Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman who alleged that her supervisor, who identifies as homosexual, denied her a promotion at the Ohio Department of Youth Services due to her heterosexuality, instead promoting a less-qualified individual who also identifies as homosexual.

Previously, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had quickly dismissed Ames’s case, saying that she did not meet the “background circumstances” necessary for her workplace discrimination case to proceed, since she is both straight and white. Supreme Court justices, however, indicated that they may allow Ames’s case to proceed.

Ames began working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 and was promoted to program supervisor in 2014. Her supervisor, Ginine Trim, indicated in a 2018 performance review that Ames met expectations in 10 out of 11 categories and exceeded expectations in the 11th. Despite her positive review, Ames was denied a promotion she applied for in 2019; the position instead went to a woman who identifies as homosexual, even though she had neither applied for nor interviewed for the promotion. Ames was demoted shortly afterwards, to a position paying less than half the hourly wage of her previous role, and a man who identifies as homosexual was hired to take her previous role.

When Ames took her case to federal court, she alleged workplace discrimination on the basis of sex; the Supreme Court had ruled in 2020 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes “sexual orientation” under the denoted category of “sex.” Although Title VII does not stipulate that only members of minority groups can be discriminated against, many courts have imposed standards that members of “majority” groups must meet in bringing discrimination cases — standards which members of minority groups are not required to meet. The reasoning of such courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court, is that it is “unusual” for an employer to discriminate “against the majority.”

In oral arguments Wednesday, however, Supreme Court justices zeroed in on whether or not requiring evidence of such “background circumstances” places an unjust burden on straight, white Americans that is not placed on members of minority groups. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, bluntly declared that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it’s because you’re gay or because you’re straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same whichever way that goes.” Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested, “We’re in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me.”

Addressing a concern raised by the defendant, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether or not removing standards like those imposed by the Circuit Court would “open the floodgates” to a slew of Title VII discrimination suits. Xiao Wang, an attorney representing Ames, was joined by Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Ashley Robertson in arguing that such fears are unfounded, noting that roughly half of the nation’s appeals courts do not impose such standards and have not been inundated with Title VII suits. Robertson, in particular, as a representative of the U.S. Justice Department, observed that it is not the government’s experience as an employer that such standards are necessary to eliminate meritless cases.

Even some of the court’s more progressive-minded members seemed prepared to reject the standards set by the Circuit Court and allow Ames’s case to proceed. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, dismissed the defendant’s contention that Ames could not demonstrate discrimination even if the standards imposed by the Circuit Court were removed. She emphasized that the question before the Supreme Court “is whether a majority-group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority-group plaintiff — here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person.”

In a somewhat surprising moment, attorney T. Elliot Gaiser, representing the defendant, admitted that it was unjust and unfair to impose a stricter burden upon members of a “majority group” than upon members of a minority group. In response to questions from Justice Clarence Thomas, Gaiser said, “My friends on the other side have language they can point to about additional or higher burden that we think … shouldn’t be scrutinized on that level.” Referring to the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Ames’s case, he said, “We’re not defending the exact language there.” Kagan then pressed him, “You mean the exact language? Are you defending something like that language?” Gaiser later confessed, “I think the idea that you hold people to different standards because of their protected characteristics is wrong.”

Instead, Gaiser argued that “no one knew” whether Ames was straight or not when promotion and hiring decisions were made. Kagan shot back, “Now you’re asking us to opine on various other aspects that are, you know, really not intertwined at all with that question” before the court.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected this summer. If the court decides to reverse the “background circumstances” requirements of the lower courts, it would set a sweeping new national precedent in discrimination cases.