The 1964 Civil Rights Act covers LGBT employees from workplace discrimination federal appellate court rules

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,342
The 1964 Civil Rights Act covers LGBT employees from workplace discrimination federal appellate court rules

HUGE. The Associated Press reports:

A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act also protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, the first time a federal appellate court has come to that conclusion. The decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after it threw out a July finding by three of its own judges that the law doesn’t cover sexual-orientation bias and ordered a rare rehearing by the full court, a rare session known as an en banc hearing.

The Hively case stems from a lawsuit by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively alleging that the Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend didn’t hire her full time because she is a lesbian. The entire court reheard oral arguments in November and directed the toughest questions at a lawyer for the college who argued only Congress could extend the protections. The aggressive questions suggested the court might be willing to expand the 53-year-old landmark law.
Source: BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Rules Civil Rights Act Protects LGBT Employees From Workplace Bias - Joe.My.God.

My comments:

1) wow this is great news for the rights of LGBT people in America

2) this is the first time a federal appellate court has come to that conclusion

3) it will affect many states plans to pass or already passed anti gay laws which will now conflict with this ruling

4) unfortunately this ruling will almost certainly be challenged and have to be decided by the Supreme Court
 
Last edited:


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,666
Good news. And whatever Gorsuch thinks about it, there is still a 5-4 pro lgbt rights majority on the Supreme court until Kennedys or a liberals seat is vacant. On other hand I have doubts that the CRAs reference to "sex" would be interpreted as including sexual orientation by the SC, especially given it put a hold on Obama's bathroom EO for similar reasons.
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,342
Good news. And whatever Gorsuch thinks about it, there is still a 5-4 pro lgbt rights majority on the Supreme court until Kennedys or a liberals seat is vacant. On other hand I have doubts that the CRAs reference to "sex" would be interpreted as including sexual orientation by the SC, especially given it put a hold on Obama's bathroom EO for similar reasons.
You'd never know how it may go but only applies if one side appeals the ruling (probable) and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,553
Good outcome. Diane Wood had previously been on Obama's shortlist for SCOTUS vacancies - can't remember if it was when Kagan got it or Sotomayor (possibly both).

Interesting (and, I think, correct) reasoning that discrimination based on sexuality is also, inherently, discrimination based on sex in the sense of being discrimination based on ideas of acceptable behaviour for the sexes.
 

PeacefulViking

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
2,469
Congress would not have voted for protecting homosexuals in 1964. They have had plenty of chances since then to do so, and they have declined so far. I can't see it as the job of judges to update the law.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,666
The rumoured retirement of a SC justice this Summer has been raised again today by Sen Grassley. If as expected its Kennedy then its unlikely his replacement will share his commitment to LGBT rights.
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,342
Strike 2 for the homophobes & Trump

A Federal Court Just Ruled For Gay Rights In A Major Discrimination Case

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that a 1964 civil rights law bans anti-gay workplace discrimination. The decision rebukes the Trump administration — which had argued against a gay worker in the case — and hands progressives a win in their strategy to protect LGBT employees with a drumbeat of lawsuits.

The dispute hinges on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex, also bans workplace discrimination due to sexual orientation.

The Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled Monday, “We now hold that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination ‘because of . . . sex,’ in violation of Title VII.” In doing so, the court overruled a lower court — and a precedent from two previous court cases — and remanded the case to be litigated in light of their reading of Title VII.

The decision holds national implications due to its high tier in the judicial system, and because it’s seen as a litmus test of the Trump administration’s ability — or inability — to curb LGBT rights through court activism. The Justice Department had injected itself into the case even though it wasn’t a party to the lawsuit and doesn’t normally involve itself in private employment disputes.
Source: Buzzfeed - A Federal Court Just Ruled For Gay Rights In A Major Discrimination Case
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,342
It should be noted thst the case was heard en banc (meaning by all 13 judges in the 2nd Circuit decided it), which means the Supreme Court is the only avenue for any potential appeal.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,666
SCOTUS only hears 80 cases per year so usually federal courts of appeals rulings stand. However a vote of 4 SCOTUS judges is needed to hear an appeal.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,666
Source: BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Rules Civil Rights Act Protects LGBT Employees From Workplace Bias - Joe.My.God.

My comments:

1) wow this is great news for the rights of LGBT people in America

2) this is the first time a federal appellate court has come to that conclusion

3) it will affect many states plans to pass or already passed anti gay laws which will now conflict with this ruling

4) unfortunately this ruling will almost certainly be challenged and have to be decided by the Supreme Court
That was especially significant given the court has a Republican majority.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,666
True but those comments (While still apt) were about the ruling from April last year, while this is another court ruling
Yes but the 7th Circuit ruling is more interesting because its not how you would expect a GOP court to rule. Its not earthshaking that the 2nd Circuit would rule for this as its basically NY and has Dem majority.
 

amist4

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
8,865
Congress would not have voted for protecting homosexuals in 1964. They have had plenty of chances since then to do so, and they have declined so far. I can't see it as the job of judges to update the law.
They did for gay ‘marriage’.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,553
Good news (again).

If an employer sacks someone married to a woman because she is also a woman, where they would not sack a man who was married to the woman; or sacks someone who has sex with women because she is also a woman, but would not sack a man who has sex with women, then not sure how that can be anything other than discrimination against someone because of their sex (as well, of course, of their sexual orientation).
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top