COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The U.S. Supreme Court signaled last week it is likely to rule in favor of an Ohio woman who claims she was discriminated against at work because she is straight.

Marlean Ames brought a claim against the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace after a lesbian woman was hired for a promotion Ames also applied for. Ames said she was then demoted and replaced by a gay man.

After the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled in favor of the department, she turned to the Supreme Court. Should the court decide in Ames’ favor, the ruling could lower the bar for people belonging to majority groups to bring “reverse discrimination” claims.

Ames’ lawyers are challenging legal precedent set by some lower courts that says someone from a “majority group” has to meet a higher bar for a discrimination case to continue than someone from a minority group. However, during oral arguments on Feb. 26, several justices noted that precedent is not consistent with federal employment law.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued that the court should rule for Ames because “it doesn’t matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII.” Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to agree, saying a ruling in Ames’ favor on that point would be a “wise course” to follow.

Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser, representing Ohio officials, defended the lower court’s ruling in favor of the department, but said that “everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally.” Still, Gaiser argued that Ames failed to show she had been discriminated against.

The state said Ames was demoted because new leadership in the department wanted to restructure to prioritize sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. Ames led a program aimed at combating rape in prison but was seen as difficult to work with, according to the state’s court papers. Officials involved in making those decisions are straight, the state said.

If the Supreme Court rules in Ames’ favor, it could affect workplace discrimination claims, like those for white people who claim they face racial discrimination as a result of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, which have been targeted recently by the Trump administration.

America First Legal, a conservative group, filed a brief in Ames’ case citing other cases it has brought against various companies, including Starbucks and IBM, alleging race and sex discrimination.

“Where applied, the ‘background circumstances’ rule is an atextual, unconstitutional, and arbitrary obstacle to the vindication of employees’ nondiscrimination rights,” the group’s lawyers said.