Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #TitleVII
Most recents (8)
LIVE NOW: Tune in to our Virtual Town Hall on FB Live to hear our expert lawyers @KarenLLoewy, @DianaKFlynn and @omargp discuss today's momentous Supreme Court opinion, moderated by @arielpoems!
#LGBTQ #DecisionDay
Watch here:
facebook.com/lambdalegal/po…
#LGBTQ #DecisionDay
Watch here:
facebook.com/lambdalegal/po…
Ariel opens our discussion by naming the importance of how employment is a massive predictor of survival for LGBTQ people, particularly those who hold multiple marginalized identities. Black LGBTQ people, particularly Black trans women, are disproportionately denied employment.
.@omargp analyzes a macroscopic perspective of Title VII interpretations.
Cites Glenn v. Brumby. This ruling in 2011 found discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination.
lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases…
Cites Glenn v. Brumby. This ruling in 2011 found discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination.
lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases…
Good morning. It's another #DecisionDay at #SCOTUS.
Today, they may issue a ruling on whether the Civil Rights Act protects employees from sexual orientation & gender identity discrimination.
We'll keep you updated.
Today, they may issue a ruling on whether the Civil Rights Act protects employees from sexual orientation & gender identity discrimination.
We'll keep you updated.
"In light of Title VII’s clear language prohibiting discrimination because of sex, these cases should be quite easy for the court to resolve in the employees’ favor." Read this explainer from our own @SharonMcGowanDC & @civilrightsorg's @vanitaguptaCR.
scotusblog.com/2019/09/sympos…
scotusblog.com/2019/09/sympos…
➡️ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination "based on sex."
➡️ If you would fire a man for marrying a man but not a woman, it's sex discrimination.
➡️ If you would fire anyone for not conforming to sex-based stereotypes, it's sex discrimination. #DecisionDay
➡️ If you would fire a man for marrying a man but not a woman, it's sex discrimination.
➡️ If you would fire anyone for not conforming to sex-based stereotypes, it's sex discrimination. #DecisionDay
Do you all want me to watch and live-tweet the CNN LGBTQ Town Hall? (I will if you want. Ten-minute poll.)
OK, so we’re doing this ...
First question to @CoryBooker from Twitter Gay™️ @tombellino, asking Booker about the his college column addressing prior “disgust” about gay people. (see: politico.com/story/2013/01/…) Booker mainly talks about how he was getting people to think differently about gay people.
POSTED: #SCOTUS argument transcript in the sexual orientation cases (Bostock and Zarda), which waere heard first this morning: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
BACKGROUND: My thread on these cases —>
PAM KARLAN, arguing for Bostock and Zarda, opened the arguments with crisp, clear, succinct, accessible discussion of how clear these cases should be:
This morning the Supreme Court is hearing three cases to determine whether #LGBTQ workers are protected from discrimination under our nation’s sex non-discrimination laws, a decision that will have major consequences for our nation. #SCOTUS
Someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity is intrinsically linked with their sex. It is impossible to discriminate against someone in a same-sex relationship without, by definition, taking their sex into consideration.
Same goes for gender identity. It is impossible to discriminate against someone for not expressing themselves in a way that aligns with how you perceive their sex without considering... their sex.
1/ ICYMI, I've written and co-written a couple of things I hope some readers will find interesting about central questions in each of the Title VII cases being argued in the #SCOTUS today.
#TitleVII #LGBTQ #stephens #zarda #bostock @SCOTUSblog #appellatetwitter
#TitleVII #LGBTQ #stephens #zarda #bostock @SCOTUSblog #appellatetwitter
2/ First, in this blogpost I address the argument that T7 doesn't prohibit an employer from adhering to a policy or practice of disfavoring gay men and lesbians alike, e.g., a "heterosexuals only need apply" policy.
(cont.)
balkin.blogspot.com/2019/09/though…...
(cont.)
balkin.blogspot.com/2019/09/though…...
3/ I explain that that doesn't describe the employers in the two cases the Court is hearing today--nor virtually any other employers one finds in T7 cases--but that, in any event, the Court's doctrines involving other forms of discrimination ...
1/16 I got a number of thought-provoking responses to my thread on textualism, originalism and the LGBT Title VII cases that I thought were worth responding to with a new thread. Thanks @BRSoucek @limerickless @espinsegall @marty_lederman @wizopindy @KineticDarkroom @sbendc_
2/16 First, a response to those who suggested the textualist analysis in the Title VII LGBT cases is not as straightforward as I suggest: I respectfully disagree. #textualism #LGBT #TitleVII
3/16 The conservative wing of the Court has consistently held that “because of" connotes “but-for” causation on a plain language reading. See Gross, Nassar, Burrage. As I laid out in my original thread, sex (even defined as “biological” sex) is a but-for cause in the LGBT cases.
1/17 A thread: Why LGBT employees win in the Title VII cases if a textualist methodology is applied (and even most originalist ones too). #textualism #originalism #LGBT #TitleVII
2/17 Many people seem to assume that the application of textualism and originalism necessarily leads to politically conservative results, and thus would lead to a loss in the LGBT Title VII cases. This is not true.
3/17 Indeed, in the case of the Title VII LGBT rights cases, following a principled textualist methodology would necessarily result in a pro-LGBT result.
