Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Mon Dec 11, 2017, 11:05 AM Dec 2017

Supreme Court refuses to hear LGBT workplace discrimination case

Source: The Hill




BY LYDIA WHEELER - 12/11/17 09:56 AM EST

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a case challenging whether sex discrimination protections in employment extend to sexual orientation.

The justices denied an appeal from a Georgia woman who claims she was harassed and forced from her job as a security officer at Georgia Regional Hospital.

Jameka Evans argued the hospital violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation and her nonconformity to gender norms of appearance and demeanor, according to her attorneys at Lambda Legal.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Evans’s claim and dismissed her lawsuit. The Supreme Court gave no explanation Monday why it decided not to take the case.

- This developing report will be updated.

###

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/364243-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-lgbt-workplace-discrimination-case

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court refuses to hear LGBT workplace discrimination case (Original Post) DonViejo Dec 2017 OP
Not suprising MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #1
Could there be a third gender argument is some cases? .... marble falls Dec 2017 #3
Thanks! MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #9
The 7th Circuit disagrees sl8 Dec 2017 #4
welcome to DU gopiscrap Dec 2017 #8
Lets see if I have this strait.... TranssexualKaren Dec 2017 #2
To boil it down to simple terms. She was fired for not being a man. Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2017 #5
Post removed Post removed Dec 2017 #6
Only for a man, apparently. And that is why this is a gender case. Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2017 #7
 

MaupitiBlue

(18 posts)
1. Not suprising
Mon Dec 11, 2017, 11:12 AM
Dec 2017

Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of gender, not sexual orientation. For the foreseeable future, any protections are going to have to come from state laws.

 

MaupitiBlue

(18 posts)
9. Thanks!
Sat Dec 16, 2017, 12:10 AM
Dec 2017

I'm sure there have already been cases, but I think someone who could prove that they were fired because they were transgendered would have a pretty strong argument for protection under Title VII.

sl8

(13,787 posts)
4. The 7th Circuit disagrees
Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:21 PM
Dec 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/04/seventh-circuit-holds-that-title-vii-forbids-anti-gay-job-discrimination/?utm_term=.3f58d3e50aac

The Volokh Conspiracy Analysis
Seventh Circuit holds that Title VII forbids anti-gay job discrimination
By Dale Carpenter April 4

In a major decision breaking with every other federal appeals court to rule on the issue, the en banc Seventh Circuit held today that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The vote was 8-3. The opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, by Judge Diane Wood, reasoned that sexual orientation discrimination is essentially indistinguishable from sex discrimination because the former relies on stereotyped concepts about how men and women should behave sexually and about with whom they should associate in their intimate lives. Because the decision creates a circuit split on the issue of anti-gay employment discrimination for the first time, the matter could now go to the Supreme Court as soon as next Term. [UPDATE: An official at Ivy Tech told the New York Times that the school “respects and appreciates” the ruling and does not plan to appeal it to the Supreme Court. The school will still contest the factual claim that it discriminated against the plaintiff.]


So far, they're the only one, but still, the circuits are now split. I'd think that the SCOTUS would want to address it sooner, rather than later.

Also, the EEOC says, "EEOC interprets and enforces Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation." I'm not sure how that might factor in.

TranssexualKaren

(364 posts)
2. Lets see if I have this strait....
Mon Dec 11, 2017, 11:20 AM
Dec 2017

A gay woman working as a security guard was terminated for being too butch!!!
It may be premature for us to assume that this reflects a change in temperament of the court when it could be that her particular case genuinely had no merit.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,330 posts)
5. To boil it down to simple terms. She was fired for not being a man.
Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:08 PM
Dec 2017

It most certainly is a gender issue.

I agree with the circuit court

Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #5)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court refuses to ...