Will SCOTUS heighten the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in "reverse discrimination" cases?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Department of Youth Services for sex discrimination under Title VII. She alleged that she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, and that a gay man was subsequently promoted into her former position—all due to her sexual orientation (straight).

Ames claimed sex discrimination, but the 6th Circuit disagreed, ruling that she failed to establish the "'background circumstances' to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

What are these "background circumstances"? According to the 6th Circuit, plaintiffs typically prove this with evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay individuals) made the employment decision at issue or with statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against the majority group. Ames lost because she provided neither.

And that's the issue SCOTUS will decide—does "discrimination" under Title VII mean discrimination regardless of majority or minority status, or does it take on a different meaning when the claim comes from a member of the majority class? Does a member of the majority class have to show something "more" to establish discrimination.

Reading the tea leaves, I expect a reversal, which would have significant implications for all employees. As Reuters notes, "A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Ames could provide a boost to the growing number of lawsuits by white and straight workers claiming they were discriminated against under company DEI policies." Those claims have only grown louder since Jan. 20, as we find ourselves in the midst of an all-out assault on DEI as a philosophy.

While I expect SCOTUS to rule in favor of Ames, I hope it doesn't. Congress passed Title VII to prevent discrimination against historically marginalized groups, including Black individuals and women—not to help white men. Speaking as a white man, we don't need the help; we're doing just fine on our own. SCOTUS shouldn't undermine the original intent of Title VII to give me or any other white men any boost. For those of us who are historically not discriminated against, a showing of additional "background circumstances" should not be that onerous of an ask if we are claiming discrimination.

Keep a close eye on this case—it's likely to become one of the most pivotal SCOTUS employment law decisions in years.