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 Evanss 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
MaupitiBlue
(18 posts)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.
marble falls
(57,106 posts)and of course, welcome to DU!
MaupitiBlue
(18 posts)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)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.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)TranssexualKaren
(364 posts)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)It most certainly is a gender issue.
I agree with the circuit court
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #5)
Post removed