Tag: Title VII

Posted on

Texas Judge Rules It’s Ok To Discriminate Against LGBTQ People

'Welcome to Texas' sign

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—a far-right federal judge in the Northern District of Texas with a record of aligning with ultra-conservative legal positions—issued a ruling last week declaring that Title VII does not protect LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. Continue reading “Texas Judge Rules It’s Ok To Discriminate Against LGBTQ People”

Posted on

SCOTUS Hears Arguments On Whether Federal Civil Rights Laws Protect LGBTQs

(Photo: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/Public Domain)
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday for three cases considering whether federal civil rights laws protect LGBTQ people in the workplace. Two of the cases (Zarda v. Altitude Express and Bostock v. Clayton County) involve the firing of gay men and question whether anti-gay discrimination is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The third case, EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, looks for resolution on whether anti-transgender discrimination is illegal under the law. The basic premise of the arguments hinges on whether discrimination based on “sex” – which Title VII prohibits – includes any discrimination involving sexual orientation. In other words, are employers allowed to discriminate against an employee based on the sex of the person they may date or marry? Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed to take the position that Congress in 1964 did not foresee covering sexual orientation or gender identity when passing Title VII. “You’re trying to change the meaning of ‘sex,’” said Alito according to the Associated Press. But Justice Elena Kagan suggested ‘sexual orientation’ is clearly a subset of sex discrimination in that a man who loves other men shouldn’t be treated differently by an employer than a woman who loves men. Here are the immediate reactions by some reporters who attended the oral arguments. Chris Johnson, of the Washington Blade, tweets that the ruling could come down, surprisingly, to Justice Neil Gorsuch who asked several questions “if sex is also in play” in cases regarding anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Johnson also notes that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has become something of the ‘moderate/swing vote’ on the court since the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, should not be counted on to rule in our favor.

Legal blogger Amy Howe, formerly of SCOTUS Blog, also came away thinking Gorsuch may be the swing vote.

And from Mark Joseph Stern at Slate:

Only 21 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories, Guam and Puerto Rico, have laws banning bias in the workplace based on both sexual orientation and gender identity.

Posted on

Trump To Supreme Court: It’s Ok To Fire Employees For Being LGBTQ

The Trump administration, in its never-ending campaign against LGBTQ rights, has filed a brief in support of allowing private companies to legally fire employees based solely on their sexual orientation. The Trump administration, in its never-ending campaign against LGBTQ rights, has filed a brief in support of allowing private companies to legally fire employees based solely on their sexual orientation. From Dominic Holden at Buzzfeed News:

An amicus brief filed by the Justice Department weighed in on two cases involving gay workers and what is meant by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination “because of sex.” The administration argued courts nationwide should stop reading the civil rights law to protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers from bias because it was not originally intended to do so.

That view conflicts with some lower court rulings that found targeting someone for their sexual orientation is an illegal form of both sex discrimination and sex stereotyping under Title VII. Those courts have found, to illustrate the point, that a gay man wouldn’t be targeted if he were instead a woman dating a man; thus he faced discrimination because of his sex.

But the administration said in its brief Friday that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination only prohibits unequal treatment between “biological sexes,” as it argued last week in a related brief against transgender rights, in which the Justice Department said companies should be able to fire people because they are transgender as well.

Earlier this week, the Donald sidestepped a question about his administration’s position on the cases claiming he has deep support from LGBTQ Americans. “I think I’ve done really very well with that community,” said Trump citing his endorsement by the conservative LGBTQ group Log Cabin Republicans. “They like the job I’m doing.” The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the cases beginning October 8.

(lead image: public domain via Flickr/White House)

Posted on

Trump Administration Argues Firing People For Being Transgender Is Legal

The Trump administration has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Michigan funeral home that fired a longtime employee for coming out as transgender and beginning her transition.

The Trump administration has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Michigan funeral home that fired a longtime employee for coming out as transgender and beginning her transition.

Aimee Stephens worked for Harris Funeral Homes for five years before she began to transition in 2012.

Saying she was “violating God’s commands,” fired Stephens two weeks later.

Stephens is suing the funeral home saying she experienced sex discrimination the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It is the Trump administration’s position that transgender people can be fired just for being trans.

More from Dominic Holden at Buzzfeed News:

The Justice Department’s brief on Friday contends the word refers to a person’s “biological sex” and, further, that transgender discrimination isn’t addressed by a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that found Title VII bans sex stereotyping.

“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status,” says a filing by the Justice Department, adding, “It simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual’s gender identity or a disconnect between an individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex.”

The counterargument from LGBTQ advocates and several lower courts, however, is that the intent of lawmakers does not limit a law’s reach, but rather its meaning is defined by the statute’s plain text. They say anti-transgender discrimination can result from a person defying traditional sex stereotypes or because the person transitioned from one sex to another — and thus, it is inherently a type of sex discrimination.

The case at issue is one of three currently before the court about the rights of LGBTQ workers under Title VII — and the only one concerning a transgender worker.

The Trump administration maintains that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was authored, the idea of transgender people wasn’t present in the “ordinary public meaning of ‘sex'” as biological sex.

But here’s the double-standard: if you can only apply laws as what people knew or understood at the time the were written, that would mean military assault-style weapons would not be protected under the 2nd Amendment because the Founding Fathers didn’t know such weapons would ever exist. And that’s just the beginning.

Stephens’ legal team maintains the plain text of Title VII addresses “sex” discrimination. And it’s impossible to consider her being transgender without taking into account the concept of her sex.

SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in the case on Oct. 8, along with two additional cases that address whether sexual orientation discrimination is protected by Title VII.

Posted on

Pro-LGBTQ ‘Friends Of The Court’ Briefs Being Filed By Diverse Sectors In Advance Of Title VII Arguments At SCOTUS

U.S. Supreme Court

In advance of the upcoming oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, many sectors of America are urging SCOTUS to rule in favor of LGBTQ people.

A group of 36 former federal government officials who served during the Obama administration has filed a 43-page ‘friend of the court’ brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold LGBTQ rights.

Additionally, over 34 prominent LGBTQ-friendly Republicans, led by former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, have offered their own amicus brief which aims to ‘resonate’ with the conservative members of the high court on the issue.

Advocacy groups Family Equality, The Trevor Project, and PFLAG National submitted an their own amicus brief in support of queer employees in the critically-important LGBTQ employment discrimination cases that will be considered by SCOTUS in the 2019-2020 term.

And big business has weighed in as well with over 206 major corporations (including Apple, Amazon, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ben & Jerry’s, Coca-Cola, Domino’s Pizza, Goldman Sachs, IBM, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Nike, Starbucks, Viacom, Walt Disney and Xerox) signing on to their own brief in support of LGBTQ protections.

Posted on

200+ Companies Sign Brief Asking SCOTUS To Rule Title VII Prohibits LGBTQ Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for October 8 on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in banning LGBTQ discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for October 8 on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in banning LGBTQ discrimination.

There will be three cases regarding Title VII heard that day. The crux of the cases concerns whether anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.

LGBTQ advocates say discrimination against gay people is sex discrimination because anti-gay bias is borne out of opposition to people who love others of the same sex.

A brief filed by the ACLU last week read, in part, “Firing a man because he is attracted to other men is like refusing to hire a woman because she has school-age children, failing to promote a woman because she is too ‘macho,’ or countenancing the sexual harassment of a man who is perceived by his coworkers to be vulnerable.”

Some court watchers say they are not overly-hopeful for a pro-LGBTQ ruling in light of Donald Trump’s choices for far-right leaning justices on the high court.

But Chief Justice John Roberts has, at times, surprised the LGBTQ community.

During arguments for the Obergefell decision in 2015, which made marriage equality the law of the land, Roberts made comments wondering if banning same-sex marriage would constitute a kind of sex discrimination.

In advance of the oral arguments, 206 companies have signed on to a ‘friend of the court’ brief asking SCOTUS to rule in favor of Title VII prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQs.

The list of companies includes big tech like Facebook, Apple and Adobe; food giants like Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Domino’s Pizza; also Uber, Zillow, MGM Resorts, Hilton, HSBC Bank and more.

The Human Rights Campaign reports the amicus brief has the largest number of business signers than any other brief filed in an LGBTQ discrimination case.

The brief reads, in part, “Even where companies voluntarily implement policies to prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, such policies are not a substitute for the force of law.”

“Only a uniform federal rule can enable businesses to recruit and retain, and employees to perform, at their highest levels,” says the brief.

The brief was organized by several LGBTQ advocacy groups including the Human Rights Campaign, Out & Equal, Freedom for All Americans and Lambda Legal.

(h/t Washington Blade)

Posted on

News Round-Up: April 11, 2018

(via Instagram)

Some news items you might have missed:

• Since its Hump Day I’m starting this round with two – count’em two – InstaHunks as there’s a birthday in the house as Alex Abramov celebrates #31 with bf Brett Miles (above).

•  Illinois lawmakers have advanced a bill that would require public schools to include teaching the accomplishments of LGBT folks in history classes much like current laws that require students learn about other groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans.

• John Sherman at Buzzfeed has penned an interesting essay wondering if gay media is still focusing on gay acceptance (i.e. Love, Simon) instead of celebrating queer difference? Sherman brings up some points I hadn’t considered. Def worth the read.

• The raid on Donald Trump’s personal lawyer’s office and home specifically looked for documents regarding the now infamous “Grab’em by the pussy” Trump video from Access Hollywood. Political experts posit the investigation may be looking into payments to silence women who might have affected Trump’s electoral chances in 2016.

• A federal judge in Texas ruled last week that Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans sex discrimination, also bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

• This week we got our first look at Anything, a story about love and acceptance that follows widower Early (John Caroll Lynch) after his move to LA in the aftermath of the death of his wife. Early finds an unlikely friend in his neighbor, Freda, who is a transgender sex worker.

While the film’s premise is welcome, folks have raised concerns about the casting of Matt Bomer, a cisgender man, as the trans character Freda.

Watch the trailer below.