RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/20 10:03 am    ::: Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ Reply Reply with quote


Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, a major victory for advocates of gay rights — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court.


Quote:
Across the nation, 21 states have their own laws prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Seven more provide that protection only to public employees. Those laws remain in force, but Monday's ruling means federal law now provides similar protection for LGBT employees in the rest of the country.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rules-existing-civil-rights-law-protects-gay-and-lesbian-workers/ar-BB15vgF6?ocid=spartanntp



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 21818



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/20 10:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

YES!!!!




_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 20386



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/20 10:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

About time. And speaking of timing.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12970
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/20 4:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This was a very serious concern, to me. A different outcome could have easily signaled a sea-change in social attitude on this front. Given the Christian Right's most recent signaling, this is pretty profound.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/20 7:30 am    ::: Re: Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects L Reply Reply with quote




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/20 4:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6288
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/20 9:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:


That blurb is complete nonsense.

Those three judges didn't dissent because of bigotry. They all agree that equal treatment for LBGTQ is the correct policy, but they don't believe nine bubble-wrapped lawyers in Washington, D.C., should be making national policy on on this or any other important issue. Rather, their jurisprudential philosophy is that judges should stick to interpreting textual laws according to the commonly understood meaning of the textual words at the time of enactment.

They believe, on constitutional separation of powers principles, that such national policies should only be made by the elected branches of government, Congress and the President, by enacting clear laws that implement the policies. If Congress wanted the word "sex" in the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation or psychological gender preference, which it clearly did not in 1964, then the constitutionally appropriate body to make such a legal change, as social mores change, is Congress. In fact, many such bills have been proposed in Congress recently, and about half the state legislatures have amended their state civil rights laws to cover sexual orientation and gender preference.

Citizens should learn something about basic civics and the constitution and stop slandering people with allegations of racism and bigotry.
taropatch



Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 717
Location: Kau Rubbish Dump


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/20 10:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This ruling is only for employee protection and has nothing to do with baking wedding cakes, correct? You may end up in court, but you can still refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Its my understanding that the latter is still a fuzzy area as the Colorado ruling was for that specific case only.



_________________
I'm looking out the window, and the trucks won't stop coming (thank you, Sadie)
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12970
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/20 11:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
then the constitutionally appropriate body to make such a legal change, as social mores change, is Congress.
Citizens should learn something about basic civics and the constitution


Yes, Congress should take that on.

No, wait. The US Congress is a dysfunctional body, currently headed by the self-avowed Grim Reaper of Bills. They can't even agree on how to help people with a problem coming down the road in the future, let alone help people whose lives are ruined today, because it was still legal to fire gay people ONLY cuz they're gay. And if they did, the president might veto it. Rolling Eyes But, sure....we can let that roll on for the next 20 years, cuz...cuz IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.

Nah. I'd frankly welcome the SCOTUS to step in and say, "Nuff shit! The Civil Rights applies to ALL humans, stop splitting hairs."

I say, citizens should learn something about THE PROVEN FACTS about basic civics and the constitution: They're being bastardized to fit political narratives, and to foster divisiveness rather than unify.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"


Last edited by Howee on 06/17/20 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/20 11:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2Kor5WhSUCg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://youtu.be/2Kor5WhSUCg

"In the constitution...America's constitution literally says, all this dope shit that we wrote about rights, about owning land, about having guns, about equality, is only applicable to land owning White men."



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.


Last edited by Genero36 on 06/17/20 12:54 pm; edited 3 times in total
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/20 11:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee

You certainly have more patience than I do because I don't bother to entertain those who use being willfully obtuse as an artform.



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8259
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 2:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Genero36 wrote:


That blurb is complete nonsense.

Those three judges didn't dissent because of bigotry. They all agree that equal treatment for LBGTQ is the correct policy, but they don't believe nine bubble-wrapped lawyers in Washington, D.C., should be making national policy on on this or any other important issue. Rather, their jurisprudential philosophy is that judges should stick to interpreting textual laws according to the commonly understood meaning of the textual words at the time of enactment.

And yet that is exactly what Gorsuch did. The entire foundation of textualism is that the words mean what the words mean. And they reject out of hand the idea of "intent". So it matters for nothing what the people who wrote the law would have intended it to mean, or whether they would have wanted it applied in such a way, what matters is the words on the page as they would have been defined and understood at the time they were written.

And while the people who wrote the bill likely never would have foreseen the bill being applied as it is today, the reading that Gorsuch gave it was based completely upon the text of the law as the words would have been understood at that time. It is those members of SCOTUS that purport to be textualists when it is convenient for ruling the way they want to rule but who then abandon it when it becomes inconvenient that are worthy of scorn. While I am sure I will disagree with Gorsuch on many, many rulings in the future as I disagree with textualism as a philosophy, I can at least respect the man for consistently following his stated philosophy to its logical conclusions, rather than attempting mental gymnastics like Thomas and Alito.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61024
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 6:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Alito is a hack. He'll apply whatever philosophy leads to the Republican position.



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15285
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 11:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Alito is a hack. He'll apply whatever philosophy leads to the Republican position.


Call it Scalia-ism.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18199
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 9:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual in employment “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Prior to this decision, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals split as to whether the language “because of sex” included workplace protections for discrimination against gay or transgender people.

The Court wrote:

Today we must decide whether an employer can fire someone for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

The decision makes clear that “homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex.”

However, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18199
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Those three judges didn't dissent because of bigotry. They all agree that equal treatment for LBGTQ is the correct policy, but they don't believe nine bubble-wrapped lawyers in Washington, D.C., should be making national policy on on this or any other important issue. Rather, their jurisprudential philosophy is that judges should stick to interpreting textual laws according to the commonly understood meaning of the textual words at the time of enactment.


Honestly, it was not a surprise to see Justice Alito dissent from the majority opinion, but I was surprised at the emotional tone of it, as it was much more impassioned that his usual opinions.

The other surprising item was the "trench warfare" among President Trump's appointees, with Justice Gorsuch authoring the majority opinion and Justice Kavanagh writing a separate dissent that argues that it was Congress’ role to “amend” Title VII to include LGBT employees under the protections.

But with that, Justice Kavanagh nonetheless noted the historic nature of the decision, writing, “Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law."


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18199
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 9:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Generally speaking....here is a (not so) quick, bare bones summary of employment discrimination law.

"At-will" employment essentially means you can quite a job at any time for any reason or be fired from a job at any time for any reason (just not an illegal or impermissible one).

This means that classified/civil service employees (typically found in the public sector) cannot be terminated without just cause or due process (notice and opportunity to be heard, typically followed by an appeal or hearing). With employees subject to an employment agreement, the terms of contract govern (though you still cannot terminate someone for an illegal reason). For non-classified employees not subject to any employment agreement, you cannot be terminated in violation of federal and state laws covering the following protected categories (among others):
    Age (ADEA)
    Color (Title VII)
    Disability (ADA)
    Gender Identity (Title VII)
    Genetic Information (GINA)
    Military Service (USERRA)
    Protected Leave (e.g., FMLA)
    National Origin (Title VII)
    Pregnancy (Title VII/PDA)
    Race (Title VII)
    Religion (Title VII)
    Sex (Title VII)
    Sexual Orientation (Title VII)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for employers subject to the statute to discriminate against any individual with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that person’s race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2). The statute also prohibits segregating or limiting employees/applicants based on one of the mentioned protected categories in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).
NOTE: The statutory citations were before yesterday's SCOTUS decision - Bostock v. Clayton County.

An employee/claimant in an employment discrimination case can proceed under two theories of discrimination: “disparate treatment and disparate impact.” Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 609 (1993)).
    “Disparate treatment" is demonstrated when the employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of a protected characteristic (e.g., discrimination, harassment, etc.). Examples of this type of theory are things like failure to hire, failure to promote, termination, or other alleged workplace actions impacting the terms and conditions of employment based on a protected category.

    “Disparate impact” is demonstrated when employment practices or policies that are facially fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity. Here, an employee/claimant attempts to demonstrate that specific practices (and not the cumulative effect of the employer's selection practices) have adverse effects on a protected group. Examples of relatively recent case law in this area include lifting/physical requirements discriminating on the basis of sex or criminal background processes discriminating on the basis of race.

Disparate treatment claims must proceed along the lines of the praxis laid out by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and its progeny. Under a disparate treatment theory, claims of discrimination based on circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework:
    An employee must carry the initial burden to establish a prima facie case that creates an inference of discrimination.
    If the employee has justified a presumption of discrimination, an inference of discrimination arises and the burden shifts to the employer to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action.
    If the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer's explanation is a pretext for discrimination.

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, an employee must allege and demonstrate:
    He/she was a member of a protected class;
    He/she was performing his/her job satisfactorily or was qualified for a position sought;
    He/she was discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse employment action; and
    Similarly-situated individuals outside his/her protected class were treated more favorably or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case, the employer must provide a legitimate explanation for its decision (the adverse employment action) that is non-discriminatory.

If the employer demonstrates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, the employee/claimant can prove discrimination if he/she can demonstrate this proffered reason is actually pretext for discrimination.

The overall burden of proof for the employee/claimant in disparate treatment employment discrimination claims is by a preponderance of the evidence.

Note that the ADEA and ADA also apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in analyzing claims of discrimination under those respective statutes.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18199
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 9:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Other Statutory Requirements & Issues

Title VII does not provide a cause of action against supervisors or individual employees. Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993).

In terms of numerosity requirement, Title VII requires 15 or more employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during the current or preceding calendar year, as does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). By contrast, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has a threshold requirement of 20 or more employees for 20 calendar weeks during either the year in which the alleged discriminatory act occurred or the preceding year. [url=]29 U.S.C. § 630(b)[/url]. One caveat regarding the ADA - in 2018, SCOTUS ruled that all states and political subdivisions regardless of the number of people the public entity employs. Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, 586 U.S. ___ (2018).

The employment discrimination statutes (Title VII, ADEA, ADA) prohibit claims by applicants/employees against employers --- not independent contractors, not subdivisions or departments, etc.

In general, a department/division of an employer is a non-jural entity.

As examples, departments and subordinate entities of municipalities, counties, and towns are not separate legal entities or bodies and do not have the capacity to sue or be sued, absent specific statutory authority to do so. So an employee wanting to bring a claim of sex discrimination resulting from employment with the Phoenix Police Department would properly bring the claim against the City of Phoenix, not PPD -- the City is the employer; PPD is a department and a subpart of the City of Phoenix, not a separate entity for purposes of suit. The department or agency is only amenable to suit if it has registered as such or been designated as a jural entity through some other means.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18199
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 10:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Circumstantial Evidence Cases

If an employer claims discrimination and an employer claims termination for a non-discriminatory reason, this is where the circumstantial evidence comes into play. Examples of things that can constitute circumstantial evidence in employment discrimination cases that involve termination:

    Personnel evaluations of employee versus those of employees outside the protected category;
    Suspicious timing of the termination;
    Employer treatment of other employees in the same protected category;
    Evidence that similarly-situated employees (e.g., same job, same job category, same job duties, etc.) to the terminated employee who are not in the same protected group received systematically better treatment;
    Witness statements/testimony from co-workers regarding management treatment of employees in a protected class, as pertaining to hiring, retention, advancement, and other terms and conditions of employment; and/or
    Ambiguous statements made by the employer (especially in reference to an employee’s work performance and in performance evaluations and then later on as part of termination process or in reference to why an employee was qualified for a position but was replaced or passed over in favor of someone outside the employee’s protected group)


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18199
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/20 10:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As a supplement to my (many) posts in this thread regarding the SCOTUS ruling and employment discrimination cases generally, two follow-up points should be mentioned regarding the Bostock v. Clayton County decision:

    SCOTUS indicated that its decision does not reach into any bathroom, locker room, or dress code questions that may be raised as a result of this opinion. Rather, the ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status.

    SCOTUS also declined to address how the decision might affect religious employers, as that issue was not before the Court.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6288
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/20 5:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
As a supplement to my (many) posts in this thread regarding the SCOTUS ruling and employment discrimination cases generally, two follow-up points should be mentioned regarding the Bostock v. Clayton County decision:

    SCOTUS indicated that its decision does not reach into any bathroom, locker room, or dress code questions that may be raised as a result of this opinion. Rather, the ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status.

    SCOTUS also declined to address how the decision might affect religious employers, as that issue was not before the Court.


Yes, Gorsuch says that, but it seems rather naive and disingenuous to me. These lawsuits will come in droves, and I don't see how Gorsuch's "test" . . .

Quote:
If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the em­ployee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the em­ployer—a statutory violation has occurred.


. . . . can distinguish between "actual" trans or gender identity plaintiffs and "fake" ones, or how it would apply to bisexual, intersex, gender fluid or gender queer plaintiffs -- unless he has some Vulcan mind meld technology for discerning a plaintiff's actual sexuality or subjective state of mind.

In other words, suppose in a dress code or bathroom case we have a non-trans, non-gender ID, heterosexual but transvestite person -- or just a practical joker -- who wants to dress like a person of the opposite sex in violation of a dress code. Or suppose we have a sicko creep who simply lies about being a certain trans status or gender ID simply because he or she wants to use the bathroom or locker room of the opposite sex. I don't see how Gorsuch can distinguish between a presumably lawful firing of these fakes from the now unlawful transsexual and gender identity discrimination.

Or suppose an employer fires all bisexuals, intersexuals, gender fluids or gender queers. That employer arguably is not firing anyone on the basis of one of the two sexes, a binary biological fact that the opinion implicitly and necessarily assumes (contrary, by the way, to current woke gender dogma).

While I agree with the employment policy outcome -- that there should be no discrimination on any basis -- as a Supreme Court junkie I have great trouble with Gorsuch's logic and fully agree with Alito and Kavanaugh that Gorsuch was not applying the kind of jurisprudential statutory "textualism" championed by Scalia.

Some of these thoughts on the Gorsuch opinion and its possible future dilemmas were spurred by these critiques:

A Dilemma for Gorsuch’s Core Reasoning in Bostock

The Supreme Court’s Mistaken and Misguided Sex Discrimination Ruling

Bostock Majority: A ‘Trans Woman’ Is Not A Woman

Cam, I'd be interested in your take or predictions on these kinds of future lawsuits.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin