Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers

[demmiblue]

Source: NBC News

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

The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation. It upheld rulings from lower courts that said sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.

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.

Gay rights groups considered the case a highly significant one, even more important than the fight to get the right to marry, because nearly every LGBT adult has or needs a job.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-existing-civil-rights-law-protects-gay-lesbian-n1231018?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

---

[George II]

1. 6-freaking-3!!

[onetexan]

9. I'm pleasantly surprised - Roberts & Gorsuch have half a conscience

[cstanleytech]

34. If they were combined I wonder if they would make a halfway decent person? Nahhhhhhhh.

[onetexan]

35. i think with the Idiot losing momentum in the polls & how unpopular he is right now, that may have

prompted these 2 opportunists to be more moderate. They don't want to go down in history as one of the most hated people on the same par as the Idiot & his enablers LowBarr, Moscow Mitch, etc.

[Volaris]

52. Sort of. To them, this was surely about the correct functioning of corporate america

Not having them sued n losing money, etc, as it is about civil rights.
Remember, Roberts is a corporatist FIRST, AND THEN a conservative.

[onetexan]

54. Thanks, i've just learned something new today.

[Blasphemer]

63. Gorsuch is more a libertarian than a conservative...

Also, his opinion is a hypertexualist one. In this case, it worked in favor of equality. In many cases, it won't. Roberts is more confusing. He wrote the dissent in Obergefell (the LGBTQ marriage equality case). My best guess is that he voted this way to maintain judicial consistency. Since the court has upheld marriage equality, it would be really disruptive to then say there is no protection from employment discrimination.

[Volaris]

77. '...to maintain judicial consistency.'

That's the OTHER thing that he is before hes a conservative; is a defender of the Court and its Place. I wouldnt wanna be Trump or Barr, trying to throw down with him.

[LeftInTX]

73. This decision was easier than the marriage decision

There are millions of LGBT employed all over the country.
Many work at fast-food places and Walmart etc. Although most of those corps are accommodating, this gives teeth to anyone who experiences on the job harassment that happens in many of those settings. So if employees at Fast Food XYZ are picking on an employee and the manager says. "This goes against corporate policy", now the manager can say "This is illegal"
Or if manager is not supporting corporate policy, then corporate can enforce from a legal standpoint
.

[tavernier]

75. Some in Congress.

That would be embarrassing.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I am pleasantly surprised

Justice has been a long time coming.

[Kid Berwyn]

3. Equal justice under law.

Should be obvious, but heartened to read this news.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Sex is more than just biology. Who knew?

And who were the Luddites on the Court?

[catbyte]

28. Kavanaugh, Thomas & Alito

[nilram]

59. Round up the usual suspects

[RKP5637]

5. Excellent!!! I'm actually surprised!!! Great news!!! n/t

[Hoyt]

6. Good. I'm sure trump is meeting right now to see if he can issue an executive order or some BS.

[RKP5637]

7. No doubt, he must be going really insane now. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

27. You know it!

He's going to have to throw more bones to his christofascist base.

[VMA131Marine]

8. The ruling also applies to transgender as well

Trump’s EO to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces is looking shaky.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. I would think this ruling would essentially throw that out.

[VMA131Marine]

16. You would think ...

But, Trump being Trump, it will require a court challenge to overturn the rule most likely.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. I know Barr is an ass

but there might be some desire internally for him to not be under threat for disbarment for blatantly pushing to ignore something like this - especially with it being 6-3.

[Rebl2]

41. I thought

basically the Supreme Court was the last word. Guess I am wrong.

[onenote]

62. No. This ruling does not apply to the military.

This is not a constitutional ruling, it is an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that act does not apply the US government, including the military.

[BumRushDaShow]

66. Well E.O.s supposedly apply to the government

so that would make sense... although E.O.'s have been overturned in the past as you know (and this particular President has had a number of them thrown out or altered).

[BumRushDaShow]

10. WOOT

And during Pride Month to boot!!

[Olafjoy]

11. Really, really important

Some good news after the crap for Trans healthcare last week.

[katmondoo]

13. Good news, I am shocked.

What will Trump do now?

[sheshe2]

14. Great news! 👍

[Alacritous Crier]

15. Great news...

and a righteous decision.

[Docreed2003]

17. Omg such amazing news!!!

I know this was feared not to go I our favor and I'm so happy for our LGBTQ brothers and sisters!

[SKKY]

18. Huge! So happy for all my LGBTQ Brothers and Sisters! Perhaps now you...

...folks can breath a little easier.

[JudyM]

38. This feels so good, like seeing rainbow lights on the White House.

[BlueIdaho]

19. Splendid! Expect the transgender case to say the same.

The trans case is separate - but it is alluded to in this opinion.

[Princess Turandot]

20. FYI SCOTUS is having major server problems. The opinion document is 172 pages long..

According to a poster on the SCOTUSblog live feed (which hasn't d/led the full document yet), 'The court's opinion is only 30 pages long. The rest of the 172 pages is the dissent and a long appendix to Alito's [dissent].

According to another poster, 'Bostock opinion covers all three cases and applies to both sexual orientation and transgender identity.'

Those cases are Bostock v Georgia, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The server issues are likely being caused by this, per another SCOTUSblog poster: "Alito has a long dissent with at least 4 appendixes, Appendix D is full of images of government forms. It appears that no one file compressed these when they added them to the opinion, causing such a big file size, added with increased demand due to COVID on SCOTUS servers, makes it easy to cause an overload."

Edit: SCOTUSblog now has the opinion here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf

[markpkessinger]

37. You can read it here . . .

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

[obamanut2012]

21. I was fired in 1995 by a Fortune 500 company when they found out I was dating a woman

I had no legal recourse.

[Jersey Devlin]

24. Good!

When are they gonna rule on Traitor's Taxes?

[NeoGreen]

25. The vote was 6-to-3, with conservatives...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring sex discrimination in the workplace protects LGBTQ employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation. The vote was 6-to-3, with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joining the court's four liberal justices in the majority.

Some here were wondering, myself included, and the link in the OP didn't have the breakdown of votes.

[Politicub]

26. WOW!!!

This is a massive ruling.

[JudyM]

33. Like decades late, but massive!

[mcar]

29. Gorsuch wrote the opinion!

[markpkessinger]

36. Yes, he did . . .

. . . and it is clear and unambiguous! Here's a link to it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

[mcar]

51. Thanks. I'm gobsmacked.

[AlexSFCA]

55. the most surprising part of it

reminds me of when Roberts wrote an opinion to keep ACA.

[JudyM]

58. Ha, the day after trump's BD, this couldn't be sweeter. His appointee.

Evangelicals aren’t going to be happy

[Kali]

30. some good news on a Monday

[NurseJackie]

31. 🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🏳‍🌈🏳‍🌈🏳‍🌈🏳‍🌈🏳‍🌈

💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗
🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛
💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚
💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜

⭐⭐⭐⭐💗💗💗💗💗
⭐⭐⭐⭐🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
⭐⭐⭐⭐💛💛💛💛💛
💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚
💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜



😃😄😁😀🎈🎉💃🎊🥳🍷🍸🍹🥂🍾🍺🍻🧉💟💞💌🌹💐😻😘👩?❤️?👩👨?❤️?👨👩?❤️?💋?👩👨?❤️?💋?👨👬👭👩🏻?🤝?👩🏻👩🏼?🤝?👩🏻👩🏼?🤝?👩🏼👩🏽?🤝?👩🏻👩🏽?🤝?👩🏼👩🏽?🤝?👩🏽👩🏾?🤝?👩🏻👩🏾?🤝?👩🏼👩🏾?🤝?👩🏽👩🏾?🤝?👩🏾👩?🤝?👩🏻👩?🤝?👩🏼👩?🤝?👩🏽👩?🤝?👩🏾👩?🤝?👩👬

[JudyM]

32. Unbelievable! Un.be.liev.able.

[Mickju]

39. This is so wonderful!

[RobinA]

40. I Know I Shouldn't Say This

But Roberts has to be starting to look like a bit of a disappointment to the staunch conservative wing. Not like he hasn't had is moments, but he has not been the reliable righty vote one would have guessed. Couple years from now it might be safe to call him a swing vote.

[TrogL]

43. My morning talk people are in spluttering incoherence about Gorsuch

[moose65]

44. Roberts is starting to think of his legacy, I think

He's no hero, but he might evolve into the swing vote.

Has anyone checked any right-wing sites to see how many heads have exploded? I just can't stomach it.

[AlexSFCA]

48. he may surprise us with abortion right decision

We’ll see if what he said before (at least two times) that roe v wade is a settled law still holds true. This is still surprising considering roberts’ very sharp dissent in marriage case. This case is different though as I understand this was interpretation of statutory law instead of interpretation of constitution. It might be different how gorsuch and roberts distinguish those as opposed to thomas et. al.

[Blasphemer]

64. Yeah, statutory interpretation vs. constitutional interpretation is significant

That can explain Gorsuch more easily than Roberts. Roberts joining this opinion seems inconsistent with his opinions in the ACA cases. There, he focused on the entire statutory scheme - what was Congress trying to do with the ACA and how were they doing it. Here, he voted with Gorsuch who explicitly ignored Congress's intent. It's pretty clear that in 1964 Congress wasn't trying to protect LGBTQ rights. This is fascinating to me. Roberts is making higher order decisions here.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. He and Gorsuch will do the right thing as long as it doesn't cost big business money.

These guy are hardcore corporatists not looney bible thumpers.

[AlexSFCA]

53. in this case they did not defend employers though...

[IronLionZion]

42. Interesting that Roberts and Gorsuch joined the liberals

The other 3 conservatives can go to hell

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees

[AlexSFCA]

45. First good news of 2020! Very surprised!

Very surprised that gorsuch wrote the decision. On one hand, it is a relatively easy case for conservatives to reject as it is obvious that in 1964, congress did not mean to include lgbt protections and that sexual orientation was thought to be distinct trait. But gorsuch wrote something profound that words are more important than intent, e.g., and one cannot discriminate against LGBT w/o consideration of sex.

[cannabis_flower]

46. Ok but

Does this also apply to being evicted for being gay or losing your children? If not, the fight isn't over.

[AlexSFCA]

47. the fight is never over

but this is extremely major and I would argue one is more likely to be fired for being lgbt than evicted. And now with this case it should be relatively straightforward to litigate eviction protection. Not sure what about losing children with full marriage rights? Is it different for lgbt?

[Major Nikon]

50. Right now it only applies to discrimination in the workplace

However, it's hard to imagine how the rest of Title VII won't eventually follow suit. No doubt subsequent lawsuits are going to reference this decision and I can't see how similar suits wouldn't prevail.

[samsingh]

56. notice to evangelicals

To any lurking evangelicals. You betrayed Christian values and American values by selecting a traitor like trump to represent you to get rid of LGBTQ rights. You stacked the supreme court. Yet, after all that, you got nothing for your treachery. trump could not deliver.

[Ms. Toad]

57. I have to admit - I'm dumbfounded.

I did not expect this. Frankly, from a legal perspective, I thought the argument was a stretch and that an increasingly conservative court would refuse to accept it.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

60. Just don't know what you get...

When you buy conservative judges.

Conservatives are freaking out.

[cayugafalls]

61. I am so happy, this is great news!

Rethugs must be freaking out!

[Tom Traubert]

65. What does this mean for the just-announced healthcare rule re: LGBTQ and transgendered individuals?

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/06/12/hhs-finalizes-rule-section-1557-protecting-civil-rights-healthcare.html

“Under the final rule, HHS eliminates certain provisions of the 2016 Rule that exceeded the scope of the authority delegated by Congress in Section 1557. HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word “sex” as male or female and as determined by biology. The 2016 Rule declined to recognize sexual orientation as a protected category under the ACA, and HHS will leave that judgment undisturbed.”

In other words, the rule would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ and transgendered people when it comes to health care and health insurance.

This rule seems to be on shaky constitutional ground.

[totodeinhere]

68. We can hope that a federal judge issues a quick injunction against this.

But in the long run it will probably take quite a while to wind itself through the courts and get a final judgement.

[Tom Traubert]

71. I wonder if it will get that far.

Will the Trump administration withdraw the proposed rule, or will it double down in an effort to placate the Trump base. My guess is that the NY AG already is drafting papers seeking a permanent injunction and will file it’s papers before the rule can be implemented.

[totodeinhere]

72. I am pretty confident that we will get an injunction. And even if they do decide to contest the

injunction the Biden Justice Department can dismiss it next year.

[totodeinhere]

67. This is a great day for equal rights in this country and it was long overdue.

And isn't it rich that one of Trump's appointees wrote the majority opinion? I'm sure he is furious but I have news for you Donny. I know you always fire anyone who crosses you, but you can't fire a Supreme Court justice.

[Amy-Strange]

69. I always had this feeling that Gorsuch...

-

was going to surprise us progressives, but I didn't think he was gonna do this.

He might've been a bad person in the past, but I do remember Pelosi giving him kudos for being the first Supreme Court Justice to have an all female staff.

That might've been a smoke screen, but it gave me a little hope that maybe, just maybe he was a changed person.

People do change, you know, even republicans, but what they do going forward is the real proof.

Here's to Gorsuch doing the right thing going forward!
==============

[SpankMe]

70. Gobsmacked.

And some of Gorsuch's reasoning is elegant and intelligent. I'm shocked.

[ck4829]

74. K&R

[mahatmakanejeeves]

76. Kavanaugh's closing thoughts

Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment.

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf