SCOTUS ruling on LBGT rights

[ProfessorSlocombe]

www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, handing the movement for L.G.B.T. equality a stunning victory.

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.

I don't know enough about equality law in the US but is this like the equivealent of confirmation of the Equality Act 2010 protections in UK law?

It's very good news. Just means employers can't senselessly persecute LGBT employees. Slightly stunned that they could before tbh, but this is a country where women aren't guaranteed maternity leave and black people get shot on sight so....

I think the surprise is because Gorsuch and Trump's other SCOTUS nominees were expected to go the other way on this.

I think from the UK we forget that in the US people didn’t have that protection. I think that is why the debate between US TRAs and UK GCs is so heated as our viewpoints are so different.
I haven’t read the full judgement, but I think I could be a UK GC and still celebrate this?

But with gender identity included?

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-gay-transgender-workers-are-protected-by-federal-law-forbidding-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex/2020/06/15/2211d5a4-655b-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html

www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/15/21291542/supreme-court-trans-people-rights-discrimination-hope-again

Yes! I was thinking just this - if we're starting from such different bases, no wonder things can get so misconstrued / twisted? Like if you are used to an administration that will happily deny you basic rights, then any critique (not even criticism) can be portrayed (or interpreted) as an attack. We forget just how few federal rights people in the US have. Much love and joy to any US posters with this bright ray of hope in a dark time ❤️

It's good news, I think.

From the judgement: "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."

It protects people who are gender non-conforming or trans but the discrimination is on the basis of sex. So I think it hangs on having to recognise the trans person as their biological sex. So you cannot compel a man to wear 'female' clothing for work. The judgement refers to sex being biological sex.

Agreed, this is good news, and does illustrate as PP have said the gulf in understanding between US and UK stances. I've found GC people in the UK to be on the left politically.

Great news. I've always said that I fully support trans people's rights not to be discriminated against in housing and employment (barring the tiny handful of situations - like jobs providing personal care - where sex actually matters).

Very encouraging that SCOTUS could still come to the right decision despite the fact that Trump's now got a conservative majority on the court.

This is excellent news. It's not some sort of TRA bollocks, it's about basic workplace protections that should have been in place a long time ago, and already were in many states.

As pleased as I am that the SCOTUS interpreted sexual orientation as protected on the basis of sex I am quite sure the gender identity aspect of the argument will be used against women in the workplace.
We have been discriminated against for many years in the name of employment equality.

Good news for the US, then. Can't believe this wasn't already law.

I agree, if there wasn't this protection no wonder things are different over there.

Divided by a common language, and the presumption that there are no cultural differences, I think.

This is great news. We should all support gay and trans people's right not to be discriminated against at work. Good for Neil Gorsuch.

If it protects people from discrimination it sounds like a good thing (fence sitting because I don't fully know the legal position).

Good for Neil Gorsuch. Four words I never thought I'd see on FWR. (Hobby Lobby, anyone?) But in this instance, yes, he did make the right call.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53055632

It's even weirder in that so much varies from state to state, so in some places you can fire someone for reasons that you'd never get away with in another place.

The uS is really coming from a different thought process. In many states employers can fire someone for any reason they like, apart from these kinds of special protections. I'm not convinced that isn't as bad TBH.

On the face of it, brilliant.

The devil is very much in the detail as I understand it. Friends are telling me this is essentially swapping out the definition of 'sex' with 'gender identity'. So yes, good to have employment protections. But the ruling will have knock on effects in key women's rights battles in the US, including, I think,the young women fighting for their sporting access.

This is excellent news. No one should be fired from a job due to their sexual orientation or how they present their identity. Men should be able to wear make up, skirts, jewellery etc whether they are trans or not.

As long as the act does not conflate sex and gender this is good news!

Every person deserves dignity, the chance to earn a living, healthcare, education etc etc.

sounds good as long as care agencies are still able to specify female staff, same for prisons etc and anywhere intimate care may be required. Basically they need the same exemptions we have.

Oh, and sport, obviously!

That's what I was wondering, FloralBunting.

That's great for LGBT people in the US.

It's so backwards in many ways.

Elizabeth Hungerford wrote an explainer for Woman's Place on the Stephens v. Harris case womansplaceuk.org/2019/10/19/sex-and-gender-the-law-in-the-usa/

She ended it by saying "I believe that SCOTUS can and should rule without regard to “transgender status” and in favor of Stephens on the basis of his gender non-conformity and a prohibition against sex-based stereotyping. I hope for something roughly as follows: employment decisions made on the basis of the employer’s sex stereotyping expectation or the employee’s non-conformity to those sex-based expectations is unlawful under Title VII."

The outcome does seem to be pretty close to that.

@VickyEadieofThigh

If it protects people from discrimination it sounds like a good thing (fence sitting because I don't fully know the legal position).

Federal law never actually protects you. It just gives you recourse when the discrimination happens. The male female wage discrimination laws are over 50 years old but the wage gap persists. Most states already had anti discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation. Bet you can guess which ones didn't.