US Supreme Court rules on gay and trans issues

[Bernard]

In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has declared that "An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Actually pretty hyped about the case because just this past spring semester, I had to argue a similar case in law class. The argument on both sides is basically this:

For) Discrimination against gay or trans people is discrimination based on sex which is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Against) Discrimination against gay or trans people is not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination against homosexuals and trans people is different from discrimination based on sex.

If anyone wants me to further explain the arguments as I understand them, I can.

Case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitu..._Inc._v._Zarda

[Matthew]

Pretty good ruling imo

Always have been one for equal opportunity employers and fairness in the workplace

[Eternity]

Just because it is now "protected" doesn't mean it will apply in actual live work enviornment right? A employeer doesn't have to specifically fire someone and tell them they are firing them for being gay/bi. They can just use another LEGITIMENT reason and fire them. Am I wrong? Obviously the person fired can fight this but if it doesn't specify that they were fired for being gay as fuck then wouldn't they just be fighting a uphill battle? Please explain @bernard

[Bernard]

Just because it is now "protected" doesn't mean it will apply in actual live work enviornment right? A employeer doesn't have to specifically fire someone and tell them they are firing them for being gay/bi. They can just use another LEGITIMENT reason and fire them. Am I wrong? Obviously the person fired can fight this but if it doesn't specify that they were fired for being gay as fuck then wouldn't they just be fighting a uphill battle? Please explain @bernard

It will apply to the live work environment in that employers don't want to get sued. Like if an employee is discriminating against another employee, the employer has a responsibility by law to intervene in a reasonable manner (this can even be just like a verbal reprimand for first offense up to termination for repeat offenders). Employee suing has to basically prove that it's a "hostile work environment", this is through proving behaviors are "severe or pervasive" (don't remember if it's and or or) and stops you from working properly, like if youre tryin to do office work but some other employee keeps walking up to your cubicle to call you a ****** or something every day for no reason, your boss wont do anything about the behavior, and you've exhausted all other things like the human resources department.

Employment discrimination by your employer based on protected classes cases on the other hand go kinda like this.

1) Person basically files a case alleging they were discriminated against based on a protected class (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin from the Civil Rights Act, though local government may have added other protected classes like disabilities or age).
2) Employer provides evidence that the person was fired for a different reason (this can be proven through like performance reports)
3) Person filing case basically says that's "pretext" for discrimination. In other words, the employer gave the BS reason to cover the fact. (this can be proven through like lets say employer says youre a lazy worker, yet performance reviews say you're good, and then there are random texts that clearly show animus over one's protected class)

That's kinda the flow of it. But yeah, if you have a legit reason to fire an employee, you can. And as an employer, you gotta be some other kinda stupid to put "cause gay" on an employee termination form or something.

[Aborted]

Good.

Simple as that, no further discussion needed.

[Ahmad]

Can't believe this wasn't the case earlier lmaooo