This decision by the US Supreme Court seems to be good news for LGB & T rights
It held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which covers sex discrimination.
It held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which covers sex discrimination.
It is about 3 cases:
Gerald Bostock fired after he joined a gay softball league. Donald Zarda fired after he mentioned being gay.
Aimee Stephens, fired after saying would transition.
Gerald Bostock fired after he joined a gay softball league. Donald Zarda fired after he mentioned being gay.
Aimee Stephens, fired after saying would transition.
The US unlike the UK's Equality Act doesn't have separate protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation, maternity or "gender reassignment"
So the approach was to push for discrimination for being gay or trans to be covered under sex discrimination.
So the approach was to push for discrimination for being gay or trans to be covered under sex discrimination.
The judgment does not replace sex with gender identity - it explicitly " proceeds on the assumption that “sex” refers only to biological distinctions between male and female"
It says "it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating based on sex. "
Justice Gorscuh says "The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex."
That is: a female employee in a relationship with a man would not lose their job, therefore a male employee in a relationship with a man should not his job.
Similarly a female employee who has long hair, wears make up and dresses and uses female pronouns would not lose her job, therefore a male employee who behaves similarly (or who "identifies as a woman") should also not be fired.
In this part the judgment explains that you cannot define what transgender means without using sex.
i.e. This is the opposite of saying "Transwomen are women"
(which is not a definition)
i.e. This is the opposite of saying "Transwomen are women"
(which is not a definition)
The judgment says "Under Title VII we do not
purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything
else of the kind. "The only Q before us is whether an
employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual
or transgender has discriminated “because of such individual’s sex.”
purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything
else of the kind. "The only Q before us is whether an
employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual
or transgender has discriminated “because of such individual’s sex.”
But helpfully it does say "An employer who discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees necessarily & intentionally applies sex-based rules."
I'm not sure how this works in the US, but bathrooms, locker rooms, sports are situations where sex based rules are applied and allowed (e.g. as in the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 in the UK)....so this suggests that it is allowable sex discrimination.
Which is what we have been saying is the right place to land for trans rights: people should not be fired (or otherwise discriminated e.g. in housing, health etc...) for being trans.
But where there are sex based rules which are justified they can be applied.
But where there are sex based rules which are justified they can be applied.
