Vibiana

http://time.com/3962469/lgbt-discrimination-eeoc/

Text:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act now protects gay workers from discrimination

Workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded this week, in a groundbreaking ruling that provides new protections for LGBT Americans.

In a decision dated Thursday, the EEOC said that employers who discriminate against LGBT workers are violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination “based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

In the past, courts have ruled that Title VII does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation because it’s not explicitly mentioned in the law, but the EEOC’s ruling disputes that reasoning. “Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex,” the EEOC concluded. The committee argued that if an employer discriminated against a lesbian for displaying a photo of her wife, but not a straight man for showing a photo of his wife, that amounts to sex discrimination.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts hinted at similar reasoning earlier this year when considering the same-sex marriage case, even though he ultimately dissented on the court’s June 26 ruling in support of gay marriage. “If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts argued in April. “And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also argued this week that since courts have consistently ruled that the racial protections of Title VII apply to relationships, the sex protections should apply to relationships as well. Under Title VII, employers can’t discriminate against employees based on the races of their spouses or friends (so, for example, you couldn’t be fired for being in an interracial marriage). The EEOC’s Thursday ruling ensures that the same standard applies to sex as well, which means you can’t be fired based on whom you choose to date or marry.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created to enforce and implement the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This new interpretation radically expands the scope of those protections.

The ruling could be seen as a victory for LGBT activists, who have been advocating for greater workplace protections for years, and have redoubled their efforts in the wake of the landmark same-sex marriage ruling last month. Presidential candidates like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush have come out in support of laws to protect LGBT workers against discrimination, saying at a recent campaign event, “I don’t think you should be discriminated because of your sexual orientation. Period. Over and out.”

Housing and employment law are seen as the next battleground for LGBT activists, but the EEOC decision suggests that LGBT workers are already covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which may complicate the push to pass legislation with specific protections for LGBT workers.

* * * * * * *

Although there doesn't seem to be much concentration on the "T" part of the LGBT, this is definitely a step in the right direction. So glad I am alive to see it happen.

creekdipper

So the term "sex"...which has, in this context, always been a euphemism for gender...now has been changed to mean "sexual attraction" or "sexual behavior"?

Naw, no slippery slope ever going to happen.

Vibiana

What's the matter, they leave the leeches on too long?

creekdipper

And at last we arrive.

Draven

That doesn't make sense to you?

dave-o

This is not accurate.

Supermallet

I am a man. I love my wife.

I am a woman. I love my wife.

What's the difference between those two statements?

I'll give you a hint: Sex/gender

dave-o

This news is long over due, but very welcome. For the legal minds, what does this exactly mean? Does this now make sexuality a de facto federally protected class, as it is covered by the CRA of 1964? On a practical level what does this mean for states where it is currently legal to fire someone for being gay?

Supermallet

If it means that LGBT is now a protected class under the CRA, then yes, it would be illegal to fire them for being LGBT.

DVD Josh

Everyone here knows my support of LGBT rights, but it seems to me that a federal agency cannot unilaterally amend a statute passed by an Act of Congress, nor does it have the ability under the separation of powers to interpret the law, only enforce it by delegation from the executive. So I'm not sure how valid this all is.

hdnmickey

I'm no legal expert either, but it does seem to be the kind of decision that can be made, but also still challenged. Ultimately ending with another SCOTUS decision?

But in-between, since the ruling commission has spoken, most places will fall in line so they don't get taken to court since there is formal documentation protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

dave-o

That's what I was thinking too. That it will stand, but most likely brought to court, eventually reaching SCOTUS. But this is way outside of my knowledge base, so I could be completely wrong.

DVD Polizei

Shouldn't the EOCC include heterosexual discrimination into their language. Race includes all races. Color, all colors. And so forth and it is properly worded, but sexual orientation, the EOCC implies they only want to protect LGBT~ forms of sexual orientation. Are they implying there are only certain types of sexual orientation issues in the workplace.

That's not a good idea when you're making a law, representing the entire country.

Supermallet

Given their reasoning, heterosexuals would also be protected. They just weren't used as the example.

Sean O'Hara

With the rampant discrimination heterosexuals face daily, I cannot fathom why the EEOC would be silent on the issue.

stp115

You're right, but I'm guessing that there aren't many companies willing to go on record as being the one trying to roll back acceptance. It'll qualify as force of law for all intents and purposes.

I actually don't have a stake in this game. I don't even know anyone who is LGBT, but I love my son. And I support any law that let's him love who he loves. I'm glad that events have reached the point where that's easier.

DVD Polizei

Actually, people who are heterosexual experience discrimination, based on their sexuality and especially in certain cities, and your cute comment proves it. If I was in your workplace, and if there was such a law, as an employer, you'd be sued.

Going forward, this is exactly why I think the EEOC needs to include heterosexuals with their laws, just like everyone else, thanks.

Sexual orientation doesn't just mean homosexual, bro.

joeblow69

This seems great for now, but without an actual LAW saying that, isn't this something that is destined to be changed as soon as a republican gets the presidency?

And I thought I read somewhere it only applies to federal jobs ... that true?

Sean O'Hara

Citations needed.

In what way?

I'm sorry, grundle's the only one allowed to blatantly make shit up around here.

RoyalTea

So, only people that face rampant discrimination need laws?

I'm a white, heterosexual, able-bodied male. Part of a group that doesn't face any large-scale discrimination. If my boss said to me "we need more diversity in our office. you've been a great employee, but we're going to fire you so we can hire a mixed-race, lesbian, handicapped female because that will make us look more diverse." Should I just calmly throw the stuff on my desk into a cardboard box and walk away?

kvrdave

Makes sense given the SCOTUS ruling.

DVD Polizei

Citations needed.

JasonF

No, you could sue. You'd have about three different causes of action.

Do you know why we never hear about those kinds of lawsuits? Because what you're describing doesn't happen.

Sean O'Hara

If that were actually happening, yes the EEOC should do something about it. But since it's a deranged strawman argument you just spun out of wholecloth, it deserves the same consideration as paranoid conspiracies about Jade Helm and FEMA camps.

DVD Polizei

In the same way you would call others out if they said homosexuals don't need protection.

It is prudent to think as more laws protect a certain group, that group can discriminate against another. Without any legal recourse.

You seem to think not? The Civil Rights Act covers all colors, not just Blacks. All religions, not just Christians.

So why not heterosexuals?

Your reasoning is exactly why we have such laws.