() The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case alleging “reverse discrimination” against a plaintiff who says she was passed over for a promotion by a state agency because she is straight. 

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is set to be the first Supreme Court case to tackle workplace discrimination under the Trump administration, which dismantled diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the federal government. 

The case is poised to have widespread implications on employment discrimination laws, potentially opening the floodgates to many more claims of discrimination. 

Reverse discrimination lawsuits have become increasingly common amid a backlash by conservatives against initiatives to promote DEI in the workforce.

Conservative groups including America First Legal, which has filed numerous legal actions claiming antiwhite and antimale bias, have urged the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Ames, reported Reuters. 

What ‘reverse discrimination’ Marlean Ames is alleging

Plaintiff Marlean Ames filed suit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services alleging that she was not given a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual.

In her complaint, Ames said she worked for the department for 20 years and had high performance reviews but did not get a higher position she applied for in 2019. She also claims that she was removed from her existing position and given the option to take a lower-paying job at the agency. 

Ames said she had a gay supervisor at the time and that the department hired a gay woman for the promotion she applied for and a gay man for the program administrator job that she was asked to step down from. 

She claims both were less qualified than her.

“That’s how I came to feel that I was being discriminated against because I was straight and pushed aside for them,” Ames, 60, said in an interview with Reuters. 

Ames filed suit alleging that she had been the victim of discrimination based on her sex and sexual orientation in violation of federal employment laws.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace.

What did the lower courts rule? 

Both the trial court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.

The Appeals Court said people alleging workplace bias have to show “background circumstances,” including that LGBTQ+ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.

The court also said that plaintiffs usually must have evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision or have evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group, according to SCOTUSblog. 

The court said that the decision-makers in her case were also straight, and the only “pattern” she can point to is her own case, according to the outlet. 

Ames is now challenging the requirement that plaintiffs from majority groups, such as white and straight people, must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to make an initial claim of employment discrimination.

What are the arguments? 

Ames argues that the “background circumstances” requirement conflicts with the text of the Civil Rights Act, which simply prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to the terms of conditions of employment because of that individual’s sex” or other protected characteristic.

“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 pushes back against any suggestion that the court of appeals held Ames to a higher standard because she is straight, according to SCOTUSblog. 

The department said the “background circumstances” requirement is simply a “method of analysis” for courts to use in cases like Ames’ rather than “an additional element” for plaintiffs to show.

The Civil Rights Act requires plaintiffs to show that they were victims of discrimination “because of” a protected characteristic, which in Ames’ case is because she’s straight.

The “background circumstances” requirement “is best understood as just another way of asking whether the circumstances surrounding” the employer’s decision suggest that the employer acted with discriminatory motives, the department argued.