In a stunning surprise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBT workers are protected by the Civil Rights Act. In the biggest surprise, the decision was 6-3 and was written by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch.
What a nice surprise for Pride Month!
Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, handing the movement for L.G.B.T. equality a stunning victory.
The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The case concerned Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. The question for the justices was whether that last prohibition — discrimination “because of sex”— applies to many millions of gay and transgender workers.
The decision, covering two cases, was the court’s first on L.G.B.T. rights since the retirement in 2018 of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinions in all four of the court’s major gay rights decisions.
Those decisions were grounded in constitutional law. The new cases, by contrast, concerned statutory interpretation.
Lawyers for employers and the Trump administration argued that the common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964 was bias against women or men and did not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender workers, they said, it could pass a new law.
Lawyers for the workers responded that discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation or transgender status must as a matter of logic take account of sex.
The court considered two sets of cases. The first concerned a pair of lawsuits from gay men who said they were fired because of their sexual orientation. The second was about a suit from a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, who said her employer fired her when she announced that she would embrace her gender identity at work.
The cases concerning gay rights are Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., No. 17-1618, and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623.
The first case was filed by Gerald Bostock, a gay man who was fired from a government program that helped neglected and abused children in Clayton County, Ga., just south of Atlanta, after he joined a gay softball league.
The second was brought by a skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, who also said he was fired because he was gay. His dismissal followed a complaint from a female customer who had expressed concerns about being strapped to Mr. Zarda during a tandem dive. Mr. Zarda, hoping to reassure the customer, told her that he was “100 percent gay.”
Mr. Zarda died in a 2014 skydiving accident, and his estate pursued his case.
Most federal appeals courts have interpreted Title VII to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, have ruled that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.
In 2018, a divided 13-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, allowed Mr. Zarda’s lawsuit to proceed. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”
This is a shocking and amazing decision for justice and human rights. LBGTQ workers will be a protected class finally! This comes at the same time that Boris Johnson announces plans to make it more difficult for trans people to legally change their gender.https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/k7qbxv/boris-johnson-is-scrapping-key-trans-rights-reforms-in-the-uk?utm_source=vicenewsfacebook
For SCOTUS. . . one stepping stone in a very long trail of stones back to the house. CBK
“The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.”
How interesting that the two sexual predators on the Supreme Court [Kav and Thomas] didn’t recognize that LGBT workers are protected by the Civil Rights Act.
The heros in this outcome are Gerald Bostock and the estate of Donald Zarda who pursued the legal case, and the thousands of others who pressed for equal status as a civil right for decades, and many who died from cruel sterotypes.
A shocker indeed! But, finally: some good news!
An extremely important decision. Because it defines discrimination against LBBTQX persons as a variety of discrimination based on sex, it is very widely applicable. This is a great day for freedom!!!!!!
“Great day for freedom”, rhetorically, will that be as true after decisions in SCOTUS cases, Kristen Biel v. St. James Catholic school and Morrisey-Beurre v. Our Lady of Guadalupe?
Clayton Co., Ga. has its parallel in government-funded programs run by religious organizations, which are combined, at least the 3rd largest U.S. employer.
It won’t be a great day when the Espinoza case eliminates the wall of separation between church and state and states start paying tuition for every religious school
Projection of outcome based on possible verdicts in the combined cases, Espinosa and Biel, paint a bleak picture for equal employment in the U.S.- gender, race, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, …
History teaches us about religious schools e.g. schools allegedly linked to Gulen. Anticipating SCOTUS deliberations, the FBI may have closed or put on a slow path, its Ohio case.
Proponents of equal opportunity employment fear steps taken backward.
I hope you’ll post for your readers, the significance of the Biel and Morrisey cases.
About Linda’s note: in order to judge such cases rightly, a person has to know the HUGE differences between Catholic schools (and their history in the US and around the world) and the privatization movement, e.g., charters (whatever they call themselves). Otherwise, it just leads to a lump of falsely conflated misinformation. CBK
Hmmm.
Click to access Seton_DC_Case_Study_FINAL_r.pdf
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/06/11/35catholic_ep.h33.html
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-philadelphia-charter-schools-laptop-donations-20200402.html
GregB: I appreciate the references. Don’t forget to clean your shovel. CBK
Just being monolithic. 😇
Greg-
After the exposure of Chris Janicek’s sexist comments about a female staff member (which e-mailed to her colleagues), Nebraska Democrats are scrambling for a new candidate to replace him in the race for Ben Sasse’s seat. Janicek’s views on political issues largely run counter to the majority and leadership of the religious schools he attended.
But, at least one of his views would align with church leadership, “No, government should never require diversity of private business”.
Was not aware of this, Linda. Great. Sasse will get another six years of job security to become the next Susan Collins.
Greg- Janicek is like Sen. Steve Huffman, he won’t resign. Both said they were sorry for the respective sexist and racist statements i.e. they repented. Janicek’s defense expands to the view that he thought his comments would be kept secret.
In 2018, Janicek said he was anti-abortion and he claims the reporting of his sexist comments reflect liberals targeting him.
Great news and much needed right now.
But the fact that 3 justices voted no and almost 30% of Republicans in a recent survey disagreed with the idea that gay Americans should be “protected by civil rights laws” shows we have a way to go until the reign of President Idiot is over along with damage he continues to inflict on a daily basis in oh-so-many ways. The inevitable conservative backlash (and fundraising) began moments after the decision was announced.
Which reminds me that I have to throw Biden plus my 1st term, liberal Congress member some money.
Link to the survey: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-opinion-poll-cbs-news/
The ruling does not eliminate discrimination based on religious beliefs.
See https://verdict.justia.com/2020/06/18/the-scope-of-bostock-v-clayton-countys-contribution-to-lgbtq-rights-is-not-as-broad-as-you-might-think?utm_source=verdict-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-06-18-79b3f5d51e&utm_content=text-view-in-browser-1