Washington- Marlean Ames, a woman from Ohio, is filing a discrimination lawsuit against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

The claim was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This act prohibits workplace sex discrimination.

Following oral arguments on February 26, both liberal and conservative Supreme Court Justices appeared willing to allow the case to continue, even appearing to agree with some arguments.

Ames filed the suit after being passed over for a promotion. She alleges that her boss, a gay woman, passed her over for a “less qualified” gay woman.

“She was a 20-year employee, great reviews, and then all of a sudden she’s not hired and someone’s hired who’s gay, doesn’t have her level of college experience and didn’t even want the job,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Ames also claims that she was then demoted for another “less qualified” gay man to take her position.

According to standards set in 1981, the defendant must provide background circumstances to proceed in a discrimination case as a majority group. These circumstances must prove that the employer is acting “unusually” and discriminates against majority group members.

“It doesn’t matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, to which Justice Neil Gorsuch supported by saying there was “radical agreement” in the courtroom.

America First Legal, a conservative group, stated, “Where applied, the ‘background circumstances’ rule is an atextual, unconstitutional, and arbitrary obstacle to the vindication of employees’ nondiscrimination rights.”

President Biden’s administration also filed a brief agreeing that the requirement of background circumstances should be discarded prior to leaving office.

Opposing groups argue that this is one case and that other minority groups are subjected to discrimination more often.

If this claim is upheld, this case will make it easier for people from majority backgrounds to make workplace discrimination claims and pursue legal action in the future. Many question what this could mean following President Trump’s efforts to get rid of DEI programs and initiatives by alleging that the practice emphasizes characteristics rather than qualifications.

The Justices are not expected to provide a ruling anytime soon. It is expected that there will be a decision by the summer.