orientation, court, gender
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court declared that Title VII of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender individuals from job discrimination. The decision is a heartening victory coming from a majority conservative court for the LGBTQ+ community. (Photo: Rena Schild/Shutterstock.com)

In Landmark Case, Supreme Court Declares Federal Law Protects LGBTQ+ Individuals From Job Discrimination

On Monday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that existing federal law forbids job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The ruling is a landmark victory for the LGBTQ+ community, and a surprising decision coming from a majority conservative court.

In a 6–3 vote, the Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 inherently makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against workers because of their gender or sexual orientation. The language of Title VII explicitly mentions “sex” as a protected category. The question was whether the wording could be correctly interpreted to expand beyond the definition of biological sex to cover sexual orientation and gender identity as well. Upholding rulings from lower courts, the Court decided that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are forms of sex discrimination.

Neil Gorsuch wrote the decision — a surprising move considering he was President Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined him, along with the Court’s four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“An employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” the decision says. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

A large debate in the midst of this argument had to do with the intentions of lawmakers in 1964. In August, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Supreme Court brief that advised the justices to rule against Title VII applying to LGBTQ+ people. The DOJ argued that in 1964, the understanding of sexuality and gender identity was not mainstream, and therefore the law could only be applied to people who are cisgender.

Related Story: DOJ Files Brief Asking the Supreme Court to Rule Against Protecting Transgender Individuals from Workplace Discrimination Under Title VII

However, Gorsuch wrote in the decision, “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result, but the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

He went on to assert that only the written word is the law — not implications surrounding it.

Across the country, 21 states have their own laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, but this decision prevents this kind of discrimination across the board.

This decision is a victory for Gerald Bodstock, who was fired from a job as a welfare services coordinator for Clayton County, Georgia after joining a gay softball team. It’s also a victory for the relatives of the late Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who was fired after he told a female client not to feel uncomfortable that they were strapped together because he was gay.

The Court conceded that sexual orientation was not on lawmakers’ minds in 1964 when Title VII was passed, but that if an employee would fire a male worker for dating males and not a female worker for dating males, then the employer’s action applies directly to sex.

Aimee Stephens, who also died in May before her case reached the Supreme Court, was a transgender woman who was fired from her job at a funeral home because she refused to wear the men’s uniform.

Related Story: Zarda v. Altitude Express: Supreme Court to Hear First of Three Cases Regarding LGBTQ Discrimination

While the DOJ’s brief tried to convince the Court that Stephens’ identity was not protected by Title VII, the ACLU argued that if Stephens was assigned female at birth, she would not have requested to wear a different uniform, hence making sex relevant in cases of transgender discrimination. The Court’s view aligned with that of the ACLU.

The Supreme Court victory for LGBTQ+ individuals comes just days after the Trump administration rolled back an Obama-era policy that protected LGBTQ+ healthcare patients from discrimination. Trump announced this decision on the anniversary of the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting, in the wake of the coronavirus sweeping the nation and as protests against police brutality against the Black community raged.

In light of the state of the country, many LGBTQ+ organizations are applauding the decision, but reminding the public that more work needs to be done to protect LGBTQ+ people of all races, socioeconomic statuses and abilities.

“These decisions impact areas of the law where Congress has prohibited sex discrimination, but there are too many places in law that lack these protections,” the Human Rights Campaign said in a statement. “The Senate should join the House and move immediately to pass the Equality Act—which would codify protections for LGBTQ people in employment, housing, credit, education and jury service as well as add much-needed protections for sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in public spaces and services, as well as federally-funded programs.”

 

Latest News

bowl of congee

White Oregon Business Owner Faces Backlash for Culturally Appropriating Congee, an Asian Rice Porridge

Karen Taylor, owner of the Eugene, Oregon-based “Breakfast Cure” and self-proclaimed “Queen of Congee,” has apologized after receiving social media backlash from the AAPI community, accusing her of culturally appropriating an Asian rice porridge called congee. Kimmy Yam of NBC News reported that many Asian Americans on Twitter took umbrage…

Census 2020 map

Biden Administration Exploring Policy Changes To Make US Census More Accurate and Inclusive of Race and Ethnicity

President Biden and the U.S. Census Bureau are hoping to revive a previously proposed policy that would allow the 2030 survey to ask more accurate questions about race and ethnicity — and by extension, improve the quality of demographic data acquired and used toward policymaking, voting districts, and enforcing civil…

Starting a Family With the Help of Capital One

Originally published at capitalonecareers.com. Capital One Financial ranked No. 28 on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list in 2021.   Kevin and his husband Craig were ready to start their family. While they had a friend offer to be their surrogate, due to same-sex surrogacy regulations in their…

Achieving Your Goals With Capital One

Originally published at capitalonecareers.com. Capital One Financial ranked No. 28 on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list in 2021.   Daniel knew he’d do whatever it took to make his dreams come true. Born and raised in Richmond, Virginia, Daniel grew up facing a lot of obstacles, including…