Gorsuch gay
U.S. Supreme Court: Title VII Protects Gay and Transgender Employees
On June 15, , by a vote of , the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of Prior to the court’s historic decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, fewer than half the states had statutes banning discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees. Through the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking interpretation of Title VII, those protections now stretch across the nation.
Background
Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination “because of … sex.” For decades, courts held that “because of … sex” did not include sexual orientation or gender identity. In , the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes is prohibited by Title VII. Over the years, courts increasingly struggled to distinguish between claims based on sex-based stereotypes (which were actionable) and claims based on gender identity or sexual orientation (which were generally viewed as unactionable). Then in , the Supreme Court re
Symposium: The simplistic logic of Justice Neil Gorsuch&#;s account of sex discrimination
Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Analyze Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the John Paul II Teaching Fellow at the University of Dallas. He filed an amicus brief in support of the employers in Bostock v. Clayton Countyand Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, which he then revised into an article for the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Justice Neil Gorsuch&#;s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County claims to apply a simple and straightforward test: &#;An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex.&#; But he refuses to consider what applying this simple—in reality, simplistic—test actually requires—and not just under Title VII, but under every nondiscrimination law that includes &#;sex&#; as a protected category, notably including Title IX. Gorsuch&#;s argument rests on the logic of sex discrimination. Alas, he got that logic wrong. And had he considered what applying it to other cases would requi
Neil Gorsuch
—With marriage equality opponents Alito and Thomas, wrote dissent in Pavan v. Smith, a case that grants married same-sex couples equal treatment in the issuing of birth certificates.
—Has argued that certain minority civil rights issues, like marriage equality, should be settled through elections or legislatures, not the courts.
—Wrote concurrence in Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases, allowing religious employers to avoid following federal law based on religious belief: “For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability.” Those religious beliefs, he concluded, justified allowing the individuals, and not just the corporations, to challenge the government’s rules for employer-sponsored health insurance plans.
—Ruled numerous times against the transgender community, including a refusal to provide health look after to a transgender woman who was incarcerated and against a transgender woman wh
As the Supreme Court hears the case of Colorado Christian web designer Lorie Smith, who claims she has a right not to serve same-sex couples under the First Amendment, many own raised concerns over the evidence that the court's current conservative majority will lead to a ruling in support of the plaintiff in Creative LLC v. Elenis.
Four years ago, the court voted in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado Christian baker who had refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding in breach of the state's anti-discrimination law. The decision was made on narrow grounds, stating that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips' rights to free exercise.
Now, the justices are looking at a similar case questioning the reach and limits of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act—but the consequences could have a nationwide impact.
Here, Newsweek looks at how each of the Supreme Court's Justices stands on same-sex marriage, as demonstrated during their careers.
Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.