In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday (June 5) rejected a federal appeals court ruling that a straight woman had to clear an extra hurdle to press her claim of sexual orientation discrimination under a federal civil rights law.

The law, Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from taking adverse action against an employee or potential employee “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Four years ago, a 6 to 3 majority of the Supreme Court ruled, in Bostick v. Clayton County, that Title VII’s prohibition of employment discrimination “because of sex” includes because of sexual orientation and gender identity. It was one of the most stunning Supreme Court victories for LGBTQ people.

Thursday’s decision in Ames v. Ohio may not draw much more than a yawn. The case was testing whether Title VII could require heterosexual employees —as part of a majority class— to provide a level of proof of discrimination that sexual minorities would not have to provide. The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the district court had ruled that plaintiffs who are part of a majority should provide “background circumstances” to support their claim of discrimination.

“We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a nine-page decision for the court.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Marlean Ames, a straight woman who worked at an Ohio juvenile prison facility for 15 years. When, in 2019, she applied for a promotion, she did not get the promotion and, instead, was demoted. The Department gave the promotion to a lesbian and gave Ames’ previous position to a gay man.

Interestingly, the Sixth Circuit decision noted that the two supervisors who took the adverse actions against Ames, were both straight thus making her sexual orientation discrimination claim seemingly unsupported by the facts. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court decisions and sent the Ames case back to the district court for reconsideration.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice under the Biden administration did not support requiring majority group plaintiffs to meet the extra requirement. So, while this case was about sexual orientation discrimination on the surface, it was about how hard a court can make it for straights to prove sexual orientation discrimination.

Neither the ACLU nor any of three LGBTQ legal groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund opposed Ames’ effort to eliminate the “background circumstances” requirement for majority plaintiffs. It noted that studies have shown majority group plaintiffs in Title VII cases are already “more likely to prevail” 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,” noted the LDF brief, “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.”

A concurring opinion to Thursday’s decision in Ames v. Ohio sought to tie it to the current presidential administration’s campaign to eradicate programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the concurrence said that “American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans.”