On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear its first employment discrimination case since President Donald Trump took power and began a fairly comprehensive assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in government and private employment.

The case, known as Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, reads like it was generated for the very purpose of fueling opposition to DEI, and could be the end of a strange rule meant to discourage meritless discrimination lawsuits by groups not traditionally discriminated against.

That legally dubious, and often impractical, rule used in a handful of federal appeals courts is known as the “background circumstances rule.” It often requires members of a “majority” group to introduce evidence that is not demanded of “minority” plaintiffs. It is highly likely that the Court will say that these appeals courts must abandon this rule. Indeed, the appeals courts’ approach rests on such shaky legal ground that it’s possible that the Supreme Court’s decision will be unanimous.

Additionally, Ames is the first Supreme Court case alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since a majority of the justices held that discrimination on this basis is illegal in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). Though two Republican justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined the Court’s decision in Bostock (Gorsuch even authored it), the Court appeared to back away from Bostock in an odd case involving Biden-era education regulations that the Court handed down last year.

None of the parties ask the Court to overrule or even narrow Bostock, but Ames could nonetheless give the justices a chance to clarify whether they stand by that decision.

Significantly, Marlean Ames, the plaintiff in Ames, is a straight woman. According to her brief, she was denied a promotion that later went to a lesbian. She also alleges she was later demoted, despite a record of favorable performance reviews, and replaced by a gay man. The crux of her employment discrimination claim is that both of these actions were taken........

© Vox