RSN Fundraising Banner
Supreme Court Will Decide if It Is Legal to Fire Someone for Being LGBTQ
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5082"><span class="small">Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress</span></a>   
Monday, 22 April 2019 12:58

Millhiser writes: "Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County both ask whether existing federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC asks the same question about anti-trans discrimination."

Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Supreme Court Will Decide if It Is Legal to Fire Someone for Being LGBTQ

By Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress

22 April 19

This will end badly.

hen Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would leave the Supreme Court last June, he gave a giant middle finger to millions of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans who saw the Court slowly begin to respect their humanity. Though Kennedy was very conservative on most issues, he was relatively moderate on gay rights questions, and often joined with the Court’s liberal bloc to vindicate these rights.

Kennedy’s replacement, Brett Kavanaugh, is a much more doctrinaire conservative who is unlikely to have much sympathy for LGBTQ plaintiffs. So the shift from Kennedy to Kavanaugh is likely to be felt hard in three cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear on Monday.

Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County both ask whether existing federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC asks the same question about anti-trans discrimination.

In all three cases, the legal arguments against saying that such discrimination is forbidden are exceedingly weak. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” (the word “sex” in this context refers to gender and not to sexual intercourse), and it is difficult to argue that firing someone for being LGBTQ is not a form on gender discrimination.

As the appeals court explained in Harris Funeral Homes, the trans discrimination case, “it is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.” The whole point of such a firing is that the employee’s boss does not believe that the employee identifies with the proper gender.

Similarly, suppose that a woman is fired because she is a lesbian. A lesbian is a woman who is sexually attracted to women, but presumably the same employer would not fire men who are sexually attracted to women. Thus, this woman was fired because she has desires that male employees are allowed to have. That is gender discrimination.

Additionally, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that “sex stereotyping” is illegal gender discrimination. Firing an employee because you believe them to be a man who is behaving too much like a woman is sex stereotyping. Similarly, the notion that only men may have sex with women and vice-versa may be the ultimate sex stereotype.

So if the Supreme Court follows the law in ZardaBostock, and Harris Funeral Homes, they will rule in favor of the plaintiffs in a 9-0 decision. That outcome, however, is unlikely.

If a decade of increasingly ridiculous judicial opinions striking down Obamacare has taught the legal profession anything, it should be that, in politically charged cases, judges are more likely to behave like raw partisans rather than as jurists.

Republicans control a majority on the Supreme Court. Republicans oppose LGBTQ rights. It’s not hard to guess how ZardaBostock, and Harris Funeral Homes are likely to be decided.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+2 # kyzipster 2019-04-22 17:30
This will be interesting, I'm amazed at how many people believe that LGBTQ people have federal protection under civil rights laws. The ACLU has a page on their website devoted to active 'religious freedom' legislation at the state level. These laws override any local LGBTQ civil rights laws. Giving an employer the right to fire someone just for being lesbian or gay, the right to evict from an apartment. Perfectly legal in most of the US already. It took well over a decade to get our local ordinance passed, millions of dollars. It only passed by one vote on the city council. This was 25 year ago I think. Only urban areas have passed this law, most of the state does not have this protection.

The transgender issue is more sensational, I think public opinion would be strongly in disfavor of discrimination against lesbians and gay men if there was more awareness. I don't know where public opinion stands on transgender rights, it's possible this will go badly. I think public opinion is at least as influential as partisanship at the Supreme Court.

A lesbian was fired from a Catholic Church in my town recently, after being employed for over 20 years. Churches are exempt from the local law. She married her partner, that's what got her fired. At least the paper published a very prominent article about it. This sort of thing used to go unreported, only tracked in the LGBTQ media.
0 # chapdrum 2019-04-23 00:21
The photo says it all about Kavanawww.
0 # Scott Griffith 2019-04-24 03:41
Seems to me to be yet more all-American (US) dumb foolishness. If you want to fire someone for being gay, why did you hire them in the first place? The fact of being gay is nobody else's business, just like that fact of their being atheist, or being born in another country. When the subject is raised you can be sure that those who want to avoid talking about real issues are rubbing their hands gleefully over the distraction away from real issues that raising such foolishness causes.