

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it would take up a trio of cases alleging employment discrimination based on workers being gay or transgender. The justices will decide whether Title VII protections extend to LGBTQ workers. (Photo: Ted Eytan/flickr/cc)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would consider three cases involving whether federal law on employment discrimination extends to LGBTQ workers.
Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign (HRC), said it was "huge news" that the high court is taking up (pdf) the cases. "This will be a landmark moment for equality that will define the legacies of the Supreme Court justices," he said.
The three cases, according to USA Today, are:
- A New York skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, alleged he was fired because he was gay. He died, but his sister and life partner continue to press the case.
- A Georgia county government employee, Gerald Bostock, alleged he was fired from his job as a child welfare services coordinator because he was gay.
- A Michigan transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, alleged she was fired from the funeral home where she worked for six years as Anthony Stephens because of her transition.
Simply put, "No one should be denied a job or fired simply because of who they are or who they love, including LGBTQ people," said Sarah Warbelow, HRC legal director, in a statement.
Reuters described the stakes of the cases and what it means that the court is hearing them now.
At issue in the high-profile legal fight is whether gay and transgender people are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin, and religion. President Donald Trump's administration has argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity.
With the cases, said GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders), the Supreme Court has the opportunity "to clearly affirm what more and more courts have agreed on--#TitleVII includes employment protections for #LGBTQ people."
"To roll back those protections would be devastating for workers across the country," the organization said. Eric Lesh, executive director of the LGBT bar association of New York, echoed that point:
James Esseks, director of the ACLU's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, also addressed what's at stake:
The Supreme Court ruling that Trump seeks--that firing LGBTQ people is legal--would shock most of America. A core American value is that people should be judged in the workplace based on their performance, not their identity. It's a travesty that our government is advocating for discrimination to be legal.
The stakes here are huge. If federal law says it's fine to fire someone because she's lesbian or transgender, other federal civil rights laws may well not protect LGBTQ people, either. The federal education anti-discrimination law may not stop schools from harassing transgender students. The Federal Housing Act may not stop landlords from evicting same-sex couples. And the Affordable Care Act may not prevent health care providers from turning away transgender people. In fact, such a ruling could lead to the very "erasing" of transgender people from civil rights laws that the Trump administration is reported to have been considering last fall.
The conservative-majority court will hear the cases in fall with decisions possible in June 2020--which is noteworthy timing, wrote Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog.
"Until today, the cases slated for oral argument next term had been relatively low-profile, but this morning's announcement means that the justices will have what will almost certainly be blockbuster cases on their docket next fall, with rulings to follow during the 2020 presidential campaign," she wrote.
In the meantime, gay and transgender rights advocates say that Congress should take action by passing the Equality Act. The recently reintroduced legislation would amend federal civil rights law to extend explicit non-discrimination protections to LGBTQ Americans.
Passing the Equality Act, said HRC's Warbelow, would "address the significant gaps in federal civil rights laws and improve protections for everyone."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would consider three cases involving whether federal law on employment discrimination extends to LGBTQ workers.
Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign (HRC), said it was "huge news" that the high court is taking up (pdf) the cases. "This will be a landmark moment for equality that will define the legacies of the Supreme Court justices," he said.
The three cases, according to USA Today, are:
- A New York skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, alleged he was fired because he was gay. He died, but his sister and life partner continue to press the case.
- A Georgia county government employee, Gerald Bostock, alleged he was fired from his job as a child welfare services coordinator because he was gay.
- A Michigan transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, alleged she was fired from the funeral home where she worked for six years as Anthony Stephens because of her transition.
Simply put, "No one should be denied a job or fired simply because of who they are or who they love, including LGBTQ people," said Sarah Warbelow, HRC legal director, in a statement.
Reuters described the stakes of the cases and what it means that the court is hearing them now.
At issue in the high-profile legal fight is whether gay and transgender people are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin, and religion. President Donald Trump's administration has argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity.
With the cases, said GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders), the Supreme Court has the opportunity "to clearly affirm what more and more courts have agreed on--#TitleVII includes employment protections for #LGBTQ people."
"To roll back those protections would be devastating for workers across the country," the organization said. Eric Lesh, executive director of the LGBT bar association of New York, echoed that point:
James Esseks, director of the ACLU's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, also addressed what's at stake:
The Supreme Court ruling that Trump seeks--that firing LGBTQ people is legal--would shock most of America. A core American value is that people should be judged in the workplace based on their performance, not their identity. It's a travesty that our government is advocating for discrimination to be legal.
The stakes here are huge. If federal law says it's fine to fire someone because she's lesbian or transgender, other federal civil rights laws may well not protect LGBTQ people, either. The federal education anti-discrimination law may not stop schools from harassing transgender students. The Federal Housing Act may not stop landlords from evicting same-sex couples. And the Affordable Care Act may not prevent health care providers from turning away transgender people. In fact, such a ruling could lead to the very "erasing" of transgender people from civil rights laws that the Trump administration is reported to have been considering last fall.
The conservative-majority court will hear the cases in fall with decisions possible in June 2020--which is noteworthy timing, wrote Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog.
"Until today, the cases slated for oral argument next term had been relatively low-profile, but this morning's announcement means that the justices will have what will almost certainly be blockbuster cases on their docket next fall, with rulings to follow during the 2020 presidential campaign," she wrote.
In the meantime, gay and transgender rights advocates say that Congress should take action by passing the Equality Act. The recently reintroduced legislation would amend federal civil rights law to extend explicit non-discrimination protections to LGBTQ Americans.
Passing the Equality Act, said HRC's Warbelow, would "address the significant gaps in federal civil rights laws and improve protections for everyone."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would consider three cases involving whether federal law on employment discrimination extends to LGBTQ workers.
Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign (HRC), said it was "huge news" that the high court is taking up (pdf) the cases. "This will be a landmark moment for equality that will define the legacies of the Supreme Court justices," he said.
The three cases, according to USA Today, are:
- A New York skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, alleged he was fired because he was gay. He died, but his sister and life partner continue to press the case.
- A Georgia county government employee, Gerald Bostock, alleged he was fired from his job as a child welfare services coordinator because he was gay.
- A Michigan transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, alleged she was fired from the funeral home where she worked for six years as Anthony Stephens because of her transition.
Simply put, "No one should be denied a job or fired simply because of who they are or who they love, including LGBTQ people," said Sarah Warbelow, HRC legal director, in a statement.
Reuters described the stakes of the cases and what it means that the court is hearing them now.
At issue in the high-profile legal fight is whether gay and transgender people are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin, and religion. President Donald Trump's administration has argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity.
With the cases, said GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders), the Supreme Court has the opportunity "to clearly affirm what more and more courts have agreed on--#TitleVII includes employment protections for #LGBTQ people."
"To roll back those protections would be devastating for workers across the country," the organization said. Eric Lesh, executive director of the LGBT bar association of New York, echoed that point:
James Esseks, director of the ACLU's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, also addressed what's at stake:
The Supreme Court ruling that Trump seeks--that firing LGBTQ people is legal--would shock most of America. A core American value is that people should be judged in the workplace based on their performance, not their identity. It's a travesty that our government is advocating for discrimination to be legal.
The stakes here are huge. If federal law says it's fine to fire someone because she's lesbian or transgender, other federal civil rights laws may well not protect LGBTQ people, either. The federal education anti-discrimination law may not stop schools from harassing transgender students. The Federal Housing Act may not stop landlords from evicting same-sex couples. And the Affordable Care Act may not prevent health care providers from turning away transgender people. In fact, such a ruling could lead to the very "erasing" of transgender people from civil rights laws that the Trump administration is reported to have been considering last fall.
The conservative-majority court will hear the cases in fall with decisions possible in June 2020--which is noteworthy timing, wrote Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog.
"Until today, the cases slated for oral argument next term had been relatively low-profile, but this morning's announcement means that the justices will have what will almost certainly be blockbuster cases on their docket next fall, with rulings to follow during the 2020 presidential campaign," she wrote.
In the meantime, gay and transgender rights advocates say that Congress should take action by passing the Equality Act. The recently reintroduced legislation would amend federal civil rights law to extend explicit non-discrimination protections to LGBTQ Americans.
Passing the Equality Act, said HRC's Warbelow, would "address the significant gaps in federal civil rights laws and improve protections for everyone."