Supreme Court rules workers can’t be fired for being gay or transgender

sultrysandy

Moof - Geekette
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Posts
207,261
.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that LGBT workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

While workers in about half the country were protected by local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there was no federal law that explicitly bars LGBT workers from being fired on that basis.



The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that LGBT workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

While workers in about half the country were protected by local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there was no federal law that explicitly bars LGBT workers from being fired on that basis.

The cases were brought by three workers who said they were fired from their jobs because they were gay or transgender. They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on “sex,” also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The workers who brought the cases are Gerald Bostock, a gay man who was fired from his job as a child welfare services coordinator in 2013 after joining a recreational gay softball league; Donald Zarda, who was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor after revealing his sexual orientation to a female client; and Aimee Stephens,a transgender funeral director who was fired after announcing her intention to present as a woman.

Only Bostock lived to see the cases decided. Zarda passed away before the case was argued and his challenge was pursued by his family. Stephens passed away last month at her home in Detroit, from kidney failure, according to her attorneys.

The cases are Gerald Lynn Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express v. Melissa Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
.
 
A very pleasant surprise. I'd been bracing for disappointment on this one.

And 6-3, at that.
 
This was a very pleasant surprise this morning! I opened up the NYT and it was the headline banner. I have to say that Chief Justice Roberts has been unexpectedly open minded and fair — and who would have thought Gorsuch would go this way. Yay for both of them and the LGBTQ humans that have achieved one more small step toward true freedom.
 
A funny aspect to this story - yesterday's verdict hinged on the mention of "sex" in the Civil Rights Act.

The original bill didn't include sex. It was added by a segregationist (old-school Southern Democrat) who wanted to sabotage it, and thought that including sex as a protected attribute would make it less popular.

One of the great self-owns of history!
 
A very pleasant surprise. I'd been bracing for disappointment on this one.

And 6-3, at that.

Me, too. I suspected Roberts would go that way, but I didn't see Gorsuch's vote coming. Guess McConnell's not feeling so smug about him now. Sadly, Gorsuch doesn't want for opportunities to do something awful again soon, and he will.

A funny aspect to this story - yesterday's verdict hinged on the mention of "sex" in the Civil Rights Act.

The original bill didn't include sex. It was added by a segregationist (old-school Southern Democrat) who wanted to sabotage it, and thought that including sex as a protected attribute would make it less popular.

One of the great self-owns of history!

Ooopsie!
 
Last edited:
Am I correct to understand the law doesn’t cover companies with fewer than 15 employees?
 
By my understanding, that's correct, but closely related companies might be assessed based on their combined head-count:

https://www.jacksonlewis.com/resour...ployees-title-vii-coverage-says-federal-court

https://corporate.findlaw.com/human...ethod-for-counting-employees-under-title.html

I'll never understand the concept that discrimination is okay as long as you don't have a whole lot of employees to discriminate against. Have fourteen employees? Sure, discriminate all you want. But sixteen employees? Now it's illegal. :rolleyes:
 
I'll never understand the concept that discrimination is okay as long as you don't have a whole lot of employees to discriminate against. Have fourteen employees? Sure, discriminate all you want. But sixteen employees? Now it's illegal. :rolleyes:

Small businesses get exemptions on a bunch of laws that bind larger organisations, not just in this area. I think the rationale is that government regulation is more burdensome to small businesses because of economies of scale, e.g. a large business can better afford legal advice. Possibly also some concessions to family businesses where "I only hire my own kin" might otherwise run afoul of racial discrimination rules.
 
Small businesses get exemptions on a bunch of laws that bind larger organisations, not just in this area. I think the rationale is that government regulation is more burdensome to small businesses because of economies of scale, e.g. a large business can better afford legal advice. Possibly also some concessions to family businesses where "I only hire my own kin" might otherwise run afoul of racial discrimination rules.[/QUOTE

Yes, but it's usually for laws where the carve-out can be justified by cost. Here, there's no cost involved. It's free not to discriminate against someone. I guess it's because it's covered by the same EEOC rules as other types of anti-discrimination laws. If they want to make a carve-out so that people can hire only their own family, then make that the rule.

However, I think there's a common misconception that not discriminating mandates hiring certain percentages of everyone, and that's just not the case. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because they aren't related to you. You can do that 'til the cows come home without running afoul of the law. That's not the same as discriminating on the basis of race. I feel like this is an area where a certain set of talking points and a certain group's fears have mainstreamed their way into the public's understanding of it.
 
Back
Top