Although an Ohio woman maintains that she was discriminated against for being heterosexual, a series of judges have refused to hear her case.

Yet in a move which would leave Republicans cheering, it appears that the Supreme Court is about to reverse those rulings. 

Plaintiff was passed over for promotion and then demoted

That's according to New York Times contributor Adam Liptak, who cited oral arguments which played out before America's highest judicial body on Wednesday.

At issue is whether members of majority groups, such as white or straight Americans, must meet a higher standard of proof than minorities when seeking redress for alleged discrimination.

Reuters previously noted how lawyers for Marlean Ames stressed that the Ohio Department of Youth Services had given her multiple promotions and positive evaluations.

Despite this, Ames was passed over for a promotion in 2019 and later demoted, resulting in a $40,000 pay cut. The attorneys argued that in both instances, Ames' gay supervisor unfairly targeted her in order to benefit less qualified gay applicants.

Dispute over whether members of majority groups must meet a higher standard

Nevertheless, USA Today reported that a federal judge rejected her claim as she had not presented "background circumstances" showing the Ohio Department of Youth Services was "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion, complaining that Ames had not offered statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against straight people.

Nevertheless, Ames lawyers argue that their client's case would have been permitted to go forward if she were gay and the other employees had been straight.

"But because Ames falls on the majority-group side of the majority/minority fault line, she has no legal recourse," they wrote in a filing.

Ohio solicitor general agrees with Ames' lawyers on key point

Their reasoning was condemned in an amicus brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, which asserted that "[t]he virtual absence of widespread discrimination targeting certain majority groups like white people and straight people is well documented, and it is a relevant and important consideration."

In response, another brief filed by the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation suggested that "the rise of D.E.I. ideology and racial preferences" has made such discrimination "all too common today."

Liptak pointed out in his article how even Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser agrees that Ames should not be held to a higher standard while simultaneously asserting that she was not targeted for her sexual orientation.

"Ohio agrees it is wrong to hold some litigants to a higher standard because of their protected characteristics. The idea that you hold people to different standards because of their protected characteristics is wrong," Liptak quoted him as saying on Wednesday.