Civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers, Supreme Court rules

Civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers, Supreme Court rules
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination in the workplace. This movement was called L.G.B.T. Equivalent to an impressive win.

The vote was 6 to 3, with Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote a majority opinion. He was accompanied by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Ruth Beder Zinsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The case refers to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, national origin and gender. The question for judges was whether the latest prohibition, "sex-based" discrimination, applied to many millions of gay and transgender workers.

The court spread this decision in two cases. Judge Anthony M. Post-retirement rights from Kennedy in 2018, who wrote a majority opinion in four major court rulings on gay rights.

Those decisions were based on constitutional law. The new case, in contrast, related legal interpretation.

Employers and lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964 was prejudice against women or men and did not include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender workers, he said, it could pass a new law.

Workers' attorneys responded that discrimination with employees based on sexual orientation or transgender status should logically take gender into account.

The court considered two sets of cases. Prior to lawsuits by gay men, a couple said they were fired because of their sexual orientation. The second was about a suit for Amy Stephens, a transgender woman, who said that her employer fired her when she announced he would embrace his gender identity at work.

Matters related to gay rights are Boschok v. Clayton County, Georgia, Nos. 17-1618, and Altitude Express Inc. V. Zarda, No. 17–1623.

The first case was filed by Gerald Boscock, a gay man who was fired from a government program who, after joining a gay softball league, was neglected and abused in Clayton County, Georgia, south of Atlanta Used to help .

The second was presented by a skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, who also stated that he was fired for being gay. His dismissal followed a complaint from a client who had expressed concern about being tied up with Mr. Zarda during a mood swings. Mr. Zarda, hoping to reassure the customer, told him that he was "100 percent gay."

Mr. Jarda died in a skydiving accident in 2014, and his wealth continued with his case.

Most federal appeals courts have interpreted that Title VII excludes discrimination based on sexual orientation. But in New York and Chicago, two of them have ruled that discrimination between gay men and lesbians is a form of sexual discrimination.

In 2018, a divided panel of 13 judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York allowed Mr. Zarda's trial to continue. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Robert A. Katzman concluded that "discrimination based on sexual orientation is motivated, at least in part, by sex and therefore a subset of sexual discrimination."

Disagreements Judge Gerard E. Lynch wrote that the words in Title VII do not support a majority interpretation.

"Speaking purely as a citizen," he wrote, "I would be happy to wake up one morning and learn that Congress has just passed legislation that addresses the reasons for workplace discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act." Adds sexual orientation to the list. 1964 I'm sure that someday, and I hope it comes soon, I'll have that enjoyment. "

Judge Lynch wrote, "I would also like to know that Congress secretly passed such a law more than half a century ago, until I really woke up and realized that I was still asleep Living and dreaming. " "Because we all know that Congress did not do that."

The case for transgender rights was R.G. And GR Harris Funeral Home Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18–107. This is Amy Stephens, who was evicted from a Michigan funeral home in 2013 after announcing that she was a transgender woman and would begin working in women's clothing. Mrs Stephens died on 12 May.

He wrote to his colleagues in 2013, "Everything I should tell is very difficult for me and it is working with courage." I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind and this has disappointed me a lot. And loneliness. "

Mrs. Stephens worked at the funeral home for six years. Her colleagues said that she was capable and kind.

Two weeks after receiving the letter, the homeowner, Thomas Roast, fired Ms. Stephens. When asked about the "specific reason for ending up with Stephen", Mr. Rust said, "Well, because he was no longer going to represent himself as a man." She wanted to dress as a woman.

United States Court of Appeals of Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati ruled by Ms. Stephens. Discrimination against transgender people, the court said, was prohibited by Title VII.

The court stated, "It is analytically impossible to fire an employee as a transgender person based on the gender of the employee, at least in part," the employee said, adding that 'discrimination' is due to sex in their Gender changes led to discrimination with employees. "

Post a Comment