Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    SCOTUS Rules 6-3 to Protect LGBT From Job Discrimination

    SCOTUS Rules 6-3 to Protect LGBT From Job Discrimination

    Gorsuch: “We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx
    Listen to this article

    The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in a decision that protects LGBT people from job discrimination.

    They decided “that an employer who fires a worker for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which already protected people from sex discrimination.”

    The court considered three cases:

    One came from New York, where a skydiver alleged he was fired in 2010 because he was gay. He died in an accident in 2014, but the case has continued. A second case, from Georgia, centered on a gay man who alleged his sexual orientation was the reason he was fired from his job as child-welfare services coordinator for the juvenile court system.

    A third case involved a transgender worker in Detroit who alleged a funeral home there fired her after she said she was transitioning and would no longer present as a man. The plaintiff, Aimee Stephens, didn’t live to see the outcome of her case. She died May 12, at age 59, at her Detroit-area home.

    Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits employers from discriminating against workers, including in hiring and firing decisions, based on an employee’s sex.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, sided with the four liberal judges:

    “Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee,” said the court’s opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

    “We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

    Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

    Alito described today’s decision as “legislation.” He wrote that the document SCOTUS released “is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”

    Kavanaugh wrote that “the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.” He cited the Constitution’s separation of powers.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     1
    CrustyB | June 15, 2020 at 3:25 pm

    So I can’t fire a guy in my privately-owned business for telling a student skydiver that he won’t grind his woody into her back because he’s a sexual deviant, but I can ban people from my social network for disagreeing with left-wing mythology?


     
     0 
     
     6
    MarkS | June 15, 2020 at 3:26 pm

    Gorsuch is learning form Roberts. If there is nothing in the law that is to your liking, just make something up and insert it

    Taking a statute that never considered such a thing and saying it covers such a thing is legislating from the bench.

    Meanwhile, the same Court continues to permit states and municipalities to steal our 2nd Amendment rights.

    The Right to keep and bear arms. We keep them in our home, we bear them outside the home.

    The root of the problem is the do-gooder legislation, the civil rights act itself that tries to micromanage things.

    You could have a simple law where people can’t be fired or reasons unrelated to their employment, but that would not be intersectional.

    Like the Americans with Disabilities Act that forced a business to build a super clean room bubble because people claimed allergies or sensitivities, or bring there Service Ostrich with them into a restaurant (I cry big fowl!).

    There is no good intent that can’t be perverted, in this case literally, by the courts. Because SCOTUS has become imperial, we need a constitutional amendment that allows their decisions to be overridden by the legislature, states, and/or the President. The alternatives are worse.


       
       0 
       
       4
      Don in reply to tz. | June 15, 2020 at 6:43 pm

      I don’t believe that the framers of the 14th intended it to apply to the hiring by private companies.

      The worst thig to ever happen to America is the 14th Amendment.


     
     0 
     
     0
    alohahola | June 15, 2020 at 6:57 pm

    This seems more like a reminder memo and a guide to firing an employee than anything else.

    “Ours is a society of written laws.”

    This is certainly a good time to remind everyone of that, period.

    “In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee.”

    Clear Reminder to Employers: You will need to rely on a little more than an employee’s sex to get rid of he/she/they.

    ‘An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

    Another Clear Reminder to Employers: It’s gotta be a little something more that “merely” to cut he/she/they’s paycheck for good.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend