Supreme Court to Take Up LGBT Job Discrimination Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the question of whether provisions of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination applies to LGBT individuals.
The justices said they would hear Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which has been consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, cases involving individuals who claim they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
The Georgia case involves a discrimination claim filed by an employee of Clayton County, a suburb of Atlanta. The consolidated case, Altitude Express, involved a gay skydiving instructor who claims he was fired because of his sexual orientation.
The justices also said they would hear R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, a case from Michigan involving a funeral home employee who was fired after disclosing that she was transitioning from male to female and dressed as a woman.
The funeral home argues in part that Congress was not thinking about transgender people when it included sex discrimination in Title VII.
The cases will be argued during the high court’s fall term, with decisions likely to be handed down in June 2020, just as Democrats and Republicans are preparing for their presidential nominating conventions.
In addition to becoming a hot button issue in the presidential campaign, the cases will likely be seen as a litmus test for the court, which has theoretically grown more conservative since President Donald Trump successfully appointed two justices: Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not specifically mention sexual orientation or transgender status. However, a series of recent rulings have said it does apply to members of the LGBT community.
Federal appeals courts in New York (the Second Circuit) and Chicago (the Seventh Circuit) have ruled that gay and lesbian employees are entitled to protection from workplace discrimination.
Meanwhile, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati (the Sixth Circuit) has extended similar protections for transgender people.
The Trump administration has argued Title VII was not intended to provide protections to gay and transgender individuals in the workplace.
Separately, the White House has withdrawn an Obama-era guidance to treat claims of transgender students as sex discrimination.
As is their custom, the justices did not say why they took up the cases.
In The News
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Pennsylvania school district violated the First Amendment by punishing a student over a vulgar social-media rant sent away from school grounds. The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. The underlying case was filed on... Read More
In a unanimous decision Monday, the justices held the NCAA can’t enforce rules limiting education-related benefits — like computers and paid internships — that colleges offer to student athletes. The case doesn’t decide whether students can be paid salaries. Instead, the ruling will help determine whether... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Congress erred when it set up a board to oversee patent disputes by failing to make the judges properly accountable to the president. As a result, it said, more than 200 administrative judges who preside over patent... Read More
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans. By a 7-2 vote, the justices left the entire law intact and ruled that Texas and other Republican-led states (as well as two individual plaintiffs) have... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue — whether to ban consideration of race in college admissions. The justices on Monday put off a decision about whether they will hear an... Read More
The Supreme Court this week decided to leave in place a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who claim they developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson talc products. As is their custom, the justices did not comment Tuesday on why they rejected Johnson & Johnson's... Read More