U.S. Supreme Court Set Hears Arguments on Civil Rights Protections for LGBTQ Workers: raceAhead
The civil rights activists in your networks have been preparing for this day for a long time.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars workplace discrimination “because of sex,” or “on the basis of sex,” also prevents discrimination against gay and transgender people.
Today, they will begin hearing arguments in three cases that exemplify the issues faced by LGBTQ employees across the country.
“For the LGBTQ civil rights movement, this is a big moment,” says James Esseks, Director, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, in a blog post. “These cases will affect more people than the Supreme Court’s decision about the freedom to marry, and they potentially implicate a broader range of contexts in which LGBTQ people may face harm, if the Court green-lights discrimination.”
For 10 years, Gerald Bostock ran a program for Clayton County, Ga., which provided court advocates for abused and neglected children. “It was the job I loved, and my employer loved me doing the job,” he told NPR, noting that under his direction, his agency provided services to 100% of the children in foster care. He was fired after he joined a recreational softball team for gay men. “I lost my livelihood. I lost my medical insurance, and at the time I was fighting prostate cancer. It was devastating.”
Aimee Allison’s case will also be heard today. She worked as a funeral director for the Harris Funeral Home in Livonia, Mich., and excelled in her position for six years before she decided the pain of presenting as a man was too great. It took her eight months to work up the courage to tell her boss and colleagues of her gender identity. “I have realized that some of you may have trouble understanding this,” she wrote, adding, “[i]n truth, I have had to live with it every day of my life, and even I do not fully understand it myself.” She was fired two weeks after she submitted her heartfelt letter.
In an interview taped by his lawyers the owner of Harris Funeral Homes said Allison was “the face of the Harris Funeral Home,” and he’d been concerned how his customers would react.
You can learn more about the specific cases here.
While this is the first big test of how the new Supreme Court thinks about LGBTQ rights, they’re also in a position to reverse long
Vox has an excellent explainer of how broadly Title VII has been interpreted in the past and what’s at stake now:
“In 1989, the Supreme Court held that gender stereotyping is itself a form of sex discrimination—a woman may not be fired, for example, because her bosses deem her too masculine in appearance or conduct. Yet, as one federal appeals court explained in 2017, same-sex attraction is ‘the ultimate case of failure to conform‘ to a gender stereotype. Something very similar could be said about the stereotypical view that all people’s gender must align with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Thus, if the Supreme Court holds that it is lawful to discriminate against gay or trans workers, it could upend the 30-year-old rule against gender stereotyping. All workers—straight or queer; trans, cis, or non-binary—could become less secure in their jobs. And even if the Court does not go that far, it would be difficult to rule against these plaintiffs without carving out a significant exception to the broad rule that sex stereotyping is not allowed.”
Observed through this lens, there is reason to hope that justice will prevail. But the fact that people are as worried as they are is a disturbing sign of a dangerous time.
If you’re an ally to LGBTQ colleagues, now is a good time to say it loud and proud.