World Media

As SCOTUS begins hearings, 'suspicious packages' found on sidewalk outside

Share
SCOTUS takes on DACA, LGBTQ rights in new term

"That decision to apply the sex-specific dress code based on the biological sex of his employees (is) completely in accord with federal law".

Thus, Fuscarino said, New Jersey and other states with such anti-discrimination laws would not be affected by whatever the Supreme Court decides because the state law would still protect workers here.

Justice Samuel Alito said that including sexual orientation in Title VII is "a different policy issue from the one that Congress thought it was addressing in 1964", but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg countered by noting Congress also hadn't considered sexual harassment at the time, but courts later ruled it should be prohibited by civil rights law.

Lower courts have remained divided on whether the law covers sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the federal level and in 26 states, there is now no legal protection against employment discrimination for LGBTQ+ people. If a woman is fired because she is sexually attracted to other women, for example, then she is being treated differently from a woman who is sexually attracted to men, in violation of the law.

That LGBTQ people who are fired for their identities are actually being fired for failing to live up to gender stereotypes.

A ruling for employees who were fired due to their sexual orientation or gender identity would have a big impact across the country because most states don't protect LGBT people from workplace discrimination.

"If we redefine the meaning of sex in federal law", he predicts, it would allow "biological men to identify as women and take women's places on sports teams".

And that brings us to Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, SCOTUS' first trans rights case.

In a court filing previous year, the funeral home owner argued it wanted Ms Stephens to comply with a dress code "applicable to Stephens' biological sex". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the transgender discrimination case, is here. It did by concluding that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal discrimination because of sex.

Gerald Bostock spent a decade building a government program to help neglected children in Clayton County, Georgia.

Gerald Bostock, who says he lost his job because he is gay, stands outside his home in Atlanta on September 9, 2019. He says that after he joined the softball league and started being more open about his sexual orientation, he received negative comments about his sexual orientation and was criticized for recruiting volunteers for his program from the Atlanta gay community. The Hill also reports that according to a statement sent out by Capitol Police shortly after 10 a.m., the incident was "cleared without issue".

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

HAVING BEGUN its term Monday, the Supreme Court jumps into one of its highest-profile cases Tuesday.

Dallas businessman Bill Moore, founder and owner of Advanced Skin Fitness, was the partner of the late Donald Zarda, plaintiff in Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda.

Mr Zarda, who died in a skydiving accident in 2014, was dismissed after joking with a female client with whom he was tandem-diving not to worry about the close physical contact because he was "100% gay".

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberal justices, said, however, that employers can not treat a man who loves other men differently than a woman who loves men. But Moore and Zarda's sister, Melissa, made a decision to go ahead and pursue the case on his behalf.

Kagan pushed back against Francisco, saying "those arguments are not ones we typically would accept", as the Supreme Court has moved away from reading the tea leaves of legislative intent in favor of textual interpretation.

Share