While the eyes of the world look on in disbelief and horror at the dismantling of the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court dances on. This week (Wednesday, February 26), the court will entertain arguments as to whether an employee who is a member of a majority group must show additional evidence to prove discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Here’s what readers need to know to follow the argument and understand the consequences of the court’s eventual ruling:

The case: The case is Marlean Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames alleges that her employer, a state juvenile correctional facility, violated Title VII’s ban on discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation. In order to hear Ames’ appeal, at least four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had to agree.

Date/time of argument: Wednesday, February 26, at 10 a.m. EDT.

Link for live audio streaming: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

Link for recording and/or transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2024

Who brought the appeal: Marlean Ames is a 60-year-old straight white woman who worked at an Ohio prison facility for 15 years when, in 2019, she applied for a promotion. She did not get the promotion; instead, she was demoted. And the Department gave the promotion to a young gay woman and put a young gay man in Ames’ previous position.

The respondent: The Ohio Department of Youth Services is a facility for confining young people who have been convicted of felons. The facility provides the young people with educational and vocational opportunities.

The decision being scrutinized: Ames appealed the decision of a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The three judges included two appointees of President George W. Bush and one of President Bill Clinton. The panel, without dissent, upheld a district court decision that said Ames, as a member of the majority group of heterosexuals, failed to explain “background circumstances” to support her claim of sexual orientation discrimination. The Sixth Circuit decision noted that the Supreme Court’s 2021 opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County made clear that “sexual orientation… is a protected ground under Title VII….” Bostock was a 6 to 3 vote that held that Title VII, a federal law barring discrimination on the basis of “sex” in employment, also bars discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender status.” The Sixth Circuit noted that, in this case, two straight supervisors took the adverse actions against Ames, thus making her sexual orientation discrimination claim unsupported by the facts.

Why did the court agree to hear this case? Chances are the Supreme Court four justices who wanted to hear this case pointed to the fact that some appeals courts —but not all— require majority group plaintiffs provide an extra level of proof to support their discrimination claim. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice under Biden did not support requiring majority group plaintiffs to meet this extra requirement. So, while this case is about sexual orientation discrimination on the surface, it is really about how hard a court can make it for straights to prove sexual orientation discrimination.

The legal question being argued: Whether a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Quirky point of interest: Neither the ACLU nor any of three LGBTQ legal groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case. A brief from the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP opposed Ames’ effort to eliminate the “background circumstances” requirement for plaintiffs who are members of a majority. It noted that studies show majority group plaintiffs in Title VII cases are already “more likely tonprevail” than minority group plaintiffs.

The LDF also noted that, “LGBTQ people… experience high rates of discrimination in the workplace, with studies showing over half of LGBTQ workers surveyed report experiencing discrimination or harassment in the workplace.”

“Further, 22 percent of LGBTQ workers surveyed noted that they had been fired or not hired, and 21 percent reported being denied a promotion, wage, equal wages, or training opportunities, because of their LGBTQ status. Transgender people, especially, report high rates of discrimination, with surveys showing that 70 to 90 percent of transgender people surveyed have experienced workplace discrimination.”

Decision expected: The Supreme Court has, over the past many years, released most of its LGBTQ-related decisions in June, the last month of the session.