Published: Wed, October 09, 2019
Worldwide | By Lisa Hogan

Laverne Cox calls SCOTUS discrimination ruling the ‘most consequential’ in her lifetime

Laverne Cox calls SCOTUS discrimination ruling the ‘most consequential’ in her lifetime

Jason Carr hosted a live discussion Tuesday morning.

The Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., is pictured on March 15, 2019.

The cases centre on an existing piece of federal legislation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, colour, national origin and religion.

"Sex refers to whether you were born woman or man, not your sexual orientation or gender identity", argued Solicitor General Noel Francisco.

If the plaintiffs were fired because they were gay or transgender, that's an outrage. They argue that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people face discrimination that they would not face if the single fact of their sex was changed and their attractions or relationships were heterosexual. As several justices noted during the argument, the court has also held that Title VII prohibits "sex stereotyping", as well as same-sex sexual harassment.

"There are transgender male lawyers in this courtroom following the male dress code and going to the men's room and the court's dress code and sex-segregated restrooms have not fallen", Cole said.

Litigants arguing to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation have leaned on the history of the statute, claiming that no one in 1964 considered sex discrimination to include sexual orientation.

Aimee Stephens worked for almost six years as a funeral director at R.G.

In the Harris case, Justice Roberts asked if the funeral home's sex-specific dress policy presented discrimination on the basis of sex, or on the basis of Mr. Stephens' transgender status. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on her behalf and, after losing in a district court, won a ruling in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The Trump-Pence administration, however, has recently attempted to redefine federal sex discrimination through regulations in an effort to erase protections for transgender people, and has asked the Supreme Court to reverse course and bar LGBTQ people from receiving federal non-discrimination protections.

Bostock is a former county child welfare services coordinator in Georgia who was sacked after joining a gay-friendly softball league.

The company maintained he was sacked because he shared personal information with a client, not because he was gay, but a court in NY ruled in Mr Zarda's favour.

The building remains open. The incident was resolved around 10 a.m., police said.

"Title VII helps ensure the dignified treatment of all persons, and we as Catholics both share and work toward that goal", the bishops wrote.

If the court rules that LGBT+ people are not protected by Title VII, LGBT+ opponents are likely to use the same legal reasoning to attempt to overturn critical protections in housing, healthcare, credit, education, and more.

Don Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor at Altitude Express on Long Island.

The former, a skydiving instructor from NY, was sacked after jokingly reassuring a female client whom he was strapping to himself for a jump that he was gay.

Zarda initially lost his lawsuit, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for him. He died in a base-jumping accident in 2014, but his family have pursued the case.

How will the court decide?

When Justice Antonin Scalia joined the court in 1986, originalism was a relatively fringe philosophy only he and a few other judges adhered to, but it has since become one of the dominant methods of judicial interpretation. Kennedy was a voice for gay rights while Kavanaugh is regarded as more conservative.

Three committed textualists now sit on the high court: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.

Laverne Cox is speaking out ahead of the Supreme Court deciding on protections for LGBTQ employees. Aside from the fact that his claim is absolutely wrong - almost half of Americans already believe (incorrectly) that federal law protects LGBTQ people from being fired for being LGBTQ - interpreting the law and the Constitution, not perceived possible public reaction, is their job.

Like this: