The court unanimously ruled that people who belong to majority groups, which would include white people or heterosexual people, do not need to show a higher standard of proof or “background circumstances” in order to sue their employers. Until now, some lower circuit courts placed a higher burden on these plaintiffs, requiring them to prove that their employer was unusual in its moves to discriminate against them.

The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a former government employee for the state of Ohio who sued her employer after she was passed over for two promotions that were given to gay coworkers instead.

The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn’t specify between majority and minority groups, and that the burden of discrimination applies to all groups equally. “The court essentially decided that discrimination is discrimination, and that all concerns around such should be taken seriously. And that means there being no higher burden, as a matter of law, to show it,” says Nonnie Shivers, employment and labor attorney and managing shareholder at firm Ogletree Deakins. 

The court ruled as expected, but legal experts say the decision will have major ramifications across the employment sphere, and will likely lead to an uptick in reverse discrimination cases, in which a member of a majority group sues over perceived prejudice. 

“We should expect to see this trend continue, and see an uptick in these so-called reverse discrimination claims brought by men who are not members of historically disadvantaged groups,” Michael Steinberg, a labor and employment attorney at firm Seyfarth Shaw, tells Fortune. “Now they’ll be armed with the Ames case, which confirms that the same framework for discrimination applies to anyone.”

The court’s decision comes as diversity, equity and inclusion practices in corporate America are under attack. Over the past two years, many companies have rolled back their DEI practices following the Supreme Court’s decision to ban affirmative action in colleges and universities. Although that decision did not apply to companies, it proved to be an inflection point around cultural attitudes towards DEI, and led to ripple effects in the working world. 

Over the past few months, the Trump administration has taken aim at DEI in the workplace through a series of executive orders. Those moves have forced companies to reexamine their policies and decide whether or not they will stand by their DEI programs, change them in significant ways, or simply alter them in small ways to stay out of political crosshairs.

Some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, specifically cited DEI in their decisions. Thomas wrote that employers in America have been “‘obsessed’” with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans,” and have ​​”overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.”

“It’s not surprising, but it’s confirmation that at least two of the justices on the Supreme Court are hostile to DEI,” says David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University, tells Fortune. “I don’t think there’s been another case where they’ve actually put in writing, and these concurrences are sometimes used as breadcrumbs to encourage potential plaintiffs to see shifts in the wind and then follow them right to bring future claims.