LGBT Job Discrimination Is Prohibited by Civil Rights Law

[GMDino]

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbt-job-discrimination-prohibited-civil-rights-law-federal-appeals-court-n742751?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

Quote:A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that long-standing federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the job against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees.


It was the first ruling of its kind from a federal appeals court.

The decision, from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination."

Federal law forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but it does not explicitly mention sexual orientation, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

But the appeals court, in an 8-3 decision, said "it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the 'sex' from 'sexual orientation.'"

Related: LGBTQ Advocates Say Trump's New Executive Order Makes Them Vulnerable to Discrimination

The ruling is an immediate victory for Kimberly Hively, a part-time professor who claimed she was denied a full-time post because she is a lesbian. She said Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana, never even interviewed her for a full-time position.
Greg Nevins of the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal, which represented Hively, praised Tuesday's decision.

"Federal law is catching up to public opinion: 90 percent of Americans already believe that LGBT employees should be valued for how well they do their jobs, not who they love or who they are," said Nevins. "Now, through this case and others, that principle is backed up by the courts."

In the past, every federal appeals court to consider whether gay employees are entitled to non-discrimination protection has ruled that they are not, though the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently said they are protected.

But in Tuesday's ruling, written by Chief Judge Diane Wood, the appeals court said its conclusion was based on previous Supreme Court decisions involving employment discrimination and gay rights, "as well as the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex."
Play

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Embed
  

 LGBTQ Supporters Held A Dance Party Outside Trump Tower1:53

Writing for the court's dissenters, Judge Diane Sykes called the ruling "momentous" but said it was the equivalent of "a statutory amendment courtesy of unelected judges," resulting in "the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves."

The majority opinion also said it was not deciding whether the case might have come out differently had Ivy Tech been a religious institution.

"We hold only that a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination" for purposes of federal civil rights law.

Last month, by a 2-1 vote, a federal appeals panel in Atlanta reached the opposite conclusion in the case of Jameka Evans, who claimed she was targeted for termination because she didn't "carry herself in a traditional woman manner" in her job as a hospital security officer.

Congress has repeatedly rejected a federal non-discrimination law for gays and lesbians, but 22 states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

I wonder this will extend protection to closeted GOp elected officials?

[fredtoast]

No big surprise here. Everyone knew it was coming.

This means that the ACLU is going to force churches to have gay transgender pastors.

[*michaelsean*]

Wait what did sexual orientation mean previously?

[BmorePat87]

(04-06-2017, 02:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wait what did sexual orientation mean previously?

The law doesn't explicitly protect based on sexual orientation. The courts said that sexual orientation based discrimination is sex based discrimination, so it is protected. 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-06-2017, 03:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The law doesn't explicitly protect based on sexual orientation. The courts said that sexual orientation based discrimination is sex based discrimination, so it is protected. 

For some reason I always thought sexual orientation was in there.

[Rotobeast]

(04-06-2017, 05:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: For some reason I always thought sexual orientation was in there.

Most corporations include it in their employee handbooks.
Smart move, to remain safe.
 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

It's a good thing, but I never understood why anyone at your job would know your sexual preference to begin with. Unless you're hanging out with them outside of work or something, I suppose. I mean, I am straight but I never have walked up to a coworker and been like "Yup, so I sure love me some vaginas, because I am straight."

[BmorePat87]

(04-07-2017, 09:36 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's a good thing, but I never understood why anyone at your job would know your sexual preference to begin with. Unless you're hanging out with them outside of work or something, I suppose. I mean, I am straight but I never have walked up to a coworker and been like "Yup, so I sure love me some vaginas, because I am straight."

You've never seen anyone with a photo of their spouse on their desk or talk about their significant other? I've met well over a dozen of my coworkers' spouses/boyfriend/girlfriend.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-07-2017, 09:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You've never seen anyone with a photo of their spouse on their desk or talk about their significant other? I've met well over a dozen of my coworkers' spouses/boyfriend/girlfriend.

Never had that kind of job. Never have had a desk before. Lol

I've had people talk about significant others, but I also have had people who have never mentioned it before and I never bothered to pry. If they don't bring it up, it's not really any of my business. I respect privacy, and if I like them as a person, I really couldn't care less about their sexual orientation.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-07-2017, 09:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You've never seen anyone with a photo of their spouse on their desk or talk about their significant other? I've met well over a dozen of my coworkers' spouses/boyfriend/girlfriend.

Yeah and i'm like, "You know that's a dude right?"

[BmorePat87]

(04-07-2017, 09:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I've had people talk about significant others,

Ok, this seems to answer your last post

Quote:I never understood why anyone at your job would know your sexual preference to begin with

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2017, 09:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Never had that kind of job. Never have had a desk before. Lol

I've had people talk about significant others, but I also have had people who have never mentioned it before and I never bothered to pry. If they don't bring it up, it's not really any of my business. I respect privacy, and if I like them as a person, I really couldn't care less about their sexual orientation.

I don't think you even understand the issue we are discussing.  There is nothing in this ruling that requires people to talk about their sexual orientation at work. 

It just says that if your employer (or prospective employer) does know your sexual orientation they can not discriminate against you because of it.

[Rotobeast]

I'm totally applying to Chick-fil-A, so I can go to an interview wearing a feather boa.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

What is interesting about this is that it is the same sort of logic that was used to apply Title IX protections to trans students under the Obama administration. This court case could have far reaching implications and could cause a ripple effect that will have a profound impact on civil rights in this country.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-07-2017, 11:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ok, this seems to answer your last post

Except I was none of those persons bosses, so I was never in a position to discriminate against them to begin with. They were all my friends, or people who knew I didn't care one way or the other who they liked.

(04-07-2017, 12:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think you even understand the issue we are discussing.  There is nothing in this ruling that requires people to talk about their sexual orientation at work. 

It just says that if your employer (or prospective employer) does know your sexual orientation they can not discriminate against you because of it.

Yes, I understand what the issue is, but thanks for the condescension. My point is that unless you tell someone, they will never know. So how can you be discriminated against if you don't tell anyone? I have never talked to a boss about my relationship status or anything.

Don't get me wrong, I still agree it's a good thing for them to have. I just never understood how if you were worried about being discriminated against, you would make it public knowledge in order for it to happen to begin with. It's like being scared of your house being broken into, while telling everyone you meet that you leave all your doors unlocked.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2017, 09:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, I understand what the issue is, but thanks for the condescension. My point is that unless you tell someone, they will never know. So how can you be discriminated against if you don't tell anyone? I have never talked to a boss about my relationship status or anything.

Don't get me wrong, I still agree it's a good thing for them to have. I just never understood how if you were worried about being discriminated against, you would make it public knowledge in order for it to happen to begin with. It's like being scared of your house being broken into, while telling everyone you meet that you leave all your doors unlocked.

I thiught you understyood what I meant.

The condescention wasaimed at you for taking the position that it mis the duty of LGBT people to live in the closet and hide the truth in order to avoid troiuble.  Apparently you have some job where you never speak to any of your coworkers about anything excpt the job.  But those are pretty rare.  Most people who are properly adjusted socially speak to their co-workers about things other than work from time to time.

[BmorePat87]

(04-07-2017, 09:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except I was none of those persons bosses, so I was never in a position to discriminate against them to begin with. They were all my friends, or people who knew I didn't care one way or the other who they liked.

You said "anyone" not "boss". 

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2017, 09:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:  It's like being scared of your house being broken into, while telling everyone you meet that you leave all your doors unlocked.

No.  It is like being so afraid of your house being broken into that you are forced to keep it a complete secret where you live and can never tell anyone anything about your house even if they ask.

[*PhilHos*]

Quick question: what sexual orientation, specifically, is "transgender"?

In all seriousness, I'm glad this is finally resolved. Now, I can sue my boss for all those negative looks he gives me and comments he makes because I'm heterosexual and I dress like a straight, white male. (Okay, maybe not "in all seriousness" )

[JustWinBaby]

I've never been asked or needed to tell someone what my sexual preferences are.

But that's just me, doing my job. Apparently that makes me un-American. I've still yet to meet someone who would rather be a bigot than make money, but apparently those white, homophobic males dominate the economy. It's a GREAT argument to make, when the people you make it to have no clue to know better.