News

U.S. Supreme Court taking up LGBTQ discrimination cases

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will take up the question of whether a federal anti-discrimination law applies to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. In agreeing to hear two cases dealing with LGBTQ discrimination, the nation’s highest court will address the question of whether that protection extends to sexual orientation and being transgender.

The court will hear three cases:

Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, a New York case wherein a skydiving instructor claims he was fired because he is gay. In its ruling on the case, The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

*  Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a case wherein a child welfare services coordinator claims he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found against him, stating “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII” in an unsigned opinion that cited a previous decision from 1979.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the case of a transgender woman fired from a funeral home in Michigan after after coming out as transgender and letting her employers know she would start working in feminine clothing. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found in her favor, saying  “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.”

Last month, North Carolina lawmakers introduced a bill that would extend discrimination protections for housing, employment and accommodations to LGBTQ people.

A similar bill died in committee when it was last introduced. But Sen. Terry van Duyn, D-Buncombe, said its time has come.

“We’re seeing attitudes change across the state,” she said. “Sometimes it takes legislators a little while to catch up with the people they represent.”

Check Also

N.C. Attorney General, UNC-Chapel Hill interim chancellor sound off on Silent Sam settlement

As the UNC Board of Governors prepares to ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

A national civil rights group will intervene on behalf of its clients in the lawsuit that led to the [...]

Since PFAS are unregulated, no public notification is required. Food packaging could be a source of [...]

WASHINGTON — Toward the end of his life, the late U.S. Rep. John Dingell Jr. reportedly asked his wi [...]

Stench and flies. Noise and traffic. Waste flowing into waterways. Manure-infused spray. Complaints [...]

For over two decades, North Carolina has systematically violated the constitutional rights of its ch [...]

Last December I condemned the UNC–Chapel Hill Board of Trustees (BOT) proposal to literally enshrine [...]

The Trump administration recently revealed how it is going to take away food from nearly 700,000 Ame [...]

Nine years ago in this space, Policy Watch reported on one of the most consistently pernicious aspec [...]