The Supreme Court appeared ready on Wednesday to make it easier for workers to sue over employment discrimination, signaling a shift in how courts handle claims from white, male, and straight employees.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed inclined to strike down a legal standard used by many lower courts that requires majority-group plaintiffs to meet a higher burden of proof than what plaintiffs from historically marginalized groups have to satisfy.

The case centers on Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who sued after being removed from her job as an administrator at a juvenile corrections agency. She alleged that she was replaced by a younger gay man and later passed over for another management role given to a lesbian woman who had not initially applied.

Ames’s lawsuit was dismissed before trial because she could not satisfy the “background circumstances” test, which requires white, male, or straight plaintiffs to prove their employer is unusually biased against majority groups. This standard is used in nearly half of the country’s appeals courts, while others do not apply the same standard, leading to a series of circuit splits over the precedent.

Several justices, including some liberals, questioned the fairness of this requirement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Ames’s strong performance record and the circumstances of her dismissal. There’s “something suspicious about that,” she said. “It certainly can give rise to an inference of discrimination.”

The court’s conservative justices also appeared skeptical of the current framework. Justice Neil Gorsuch stated, “We are in radical agreement,” indicating broad support for eliminating the stricter burden on majority-group plaintiffs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested a narrow ruling that simply states the legal standard for proving discrimination should be the same for all employees.

SUPREME COURT HEARS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION CASE WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR DEI

The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund defended the existing standard in a friend-of-the-court brief, arguing that historical patterns of discrimination justify different thresholds for proving bias. However, the justices appeared largely aligned in their skepticism of such distinctions.

A ruling in the case is expected by summer and could reshape employment discrimination law nationwide.