Supreme Court Rules Civil Rights Act Protects LGBTQ Workers from Discrimination

[Endus]

My question was about how does that law work and how does it stop anyone from claiming that decision to fire them was biased. Were people seriously fired with their sexual orientation/gender/whatever officially stated as a reason?

Wrongful dismissal suits are civil suits, not criminal, so the standard of evidence is "the preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". If it's more likely A, rather than B, in the court's eyes, then it's A, even if it still could've been B, I guess, maybe.

So, if you think you were fired because you're gay, you can sue. And your employer will be required to quantify and qualify exactly why you were fired, rather than any other employees. If your job performance is comparable to Bob's, and you had seniority, for instance, why'd they fire you, not Bob?

They don't have to officially state shit. They need to demonstrate there was a valid reason to fire you, specifically, out of all their staff. If it's because you were stealing office supplies or your performance was crap compared to everyone else's, this is an easy thing to prove. If they can't prove it, well, the possibility that it was because of your orientation or identity can absolutely be considered, since you can't show any real cause other than that. And you'll get ruled against, most likely.

Or, in other words, it works exactly like every other protected class legislation that has ever existed, and acting like this is somehow a problem for the courts is completely fuckin' ridiculous.

[Lenonis]

How would one even claim they were fired because their boss hates gays? Is this just another free opression card that would be played every time LGBT person gets fired by someone straight?

It seems you believe lawsuits are won without evidence. Bold stand to take.

[Rasulis]

I think Gorsuch and Roberts are not going to reverse social advances. But when it comes to corporate rights, they are not going to continue supporting further deregulation. Now if they get a couple more conservative judges in there which is not unlikely if Trump gets reelected, then there might be very considerable changes.

I think they based their votes on strict interpretation of the text of Title VII. Title VII uses the word "sex" not "biological sex." So they stick with that.

[Gestopft]

My question was about how does that law work and how does it stop anyone from claiming that decision to fire them was biased. Were people seriously fired with their sexual orientation/gender/whatever officially stated as a reason?

How did current law stop anyone else claiming that they were fired due to a protected class? What was stopping someone from claiming that they were fired due to their religion, for example. As usual, the onus is on the accuser to prove that being Muslim/Male/Old/Transgender/etc. was a reason for their firing. This is an expansion of protections to a class that didn’t have it, not something new.

[Paranoid Android]

Next GOP platform with be to get rid of our 3rd branch, SCOTUS all together.

[cubby]

My question was about how does that law work and how does it stop anyone from claiming that decision to fire them was biased. Were people seriously fired with their sexual orientation/gender/whatever officially stated as a reason?

@Endus answered as comprehensively (short form) as I could have, better even. You have to understand that your initial question:

How would one even claim they were fired because their boss hates gays? Is this just another free opression card that would be played every time LGBT person gets fired by someone straight?

was filled with privilege assumptions. I've bolded the two that classify it as such. If you'd like a more private conversation on the subject, I'd be happy to exchange PM's. But the long and short of it is that sex and gender are protected classes, just as race is, and if you are fired based on those qualities rather than your actual work, you are allowed to sue for damages.

Employment law is exceedingly gray in an already gray field (law), and is very difficult to walk through even for learned professionals. So coming to it at this stage, and perhaps not knowing much about it (because who in their right fucking mind would read up on employment law for fun, right?), only makes the gray parts (all of it) seem that much more frustrating/incomprehensible. I swim daily in it and I find it difficult, at the best of times. Every single answer, at least initially, is "it depends".

[Rasulis]

This SCOTUS also rejected to hear Trump's administration's challenge to "sanctuary" laws in California that protect immigrants from deportation. Which leave in place a lower court ruling that upheld the bulk of three laws in the Democratic-governed state that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

Alex, what is the problem with picking strict constitutionalist judges when you are trying to break the constitution. Lol.

[Rogalicus]

Sorry, too many posts to respond to, I'd prefer to go for more general answer. I just see two ways this might go: employers would become more cunning at coming up with excuses (in states where they need to do that) or defending in court will be increasingly harder because defence would actually in losing position from the start by having to disprove whatever wild claims are aimed at them instead of asking evidence of them happening in the first place.

And your employer will be required to quantify and qualify exactly why you were fired, rather than any other employees. If your job performance is comparable to Bob's, and you had seniority, for instance, why'd they fire you, not Bob?

This is a good example. Maybe Bob has three kids. Maybe Bob is cheaper for employer simply because he's paid less than senior worker. Maybe Bob is just easier to work with and not because he's straight and the guy who was fired isn't, but just because he's more positive even in darker times. So how's boss supposed to say that he has better relationship with remaining employee without being labeled homphobe?

@Edge-'s examples are more clear and I do agree that they are a good showcase why this law might be good. I'm not sure it won't bring more bad things with it.

[Endus]

Sorry, too many posts to respond to, I'd prefer to go for more general answer. I just see two ways this might go: employers would become more cunning at coming up with excuses (in states where they need to do that) or defending in court will be increasingly harder because defence would actually in losing position from the start by having to disprove whatever wild claims are aimed at them instead of asking evidence of them happening in the first place.

This is already the status quo. And not "in certain states"; federally protected classes are protected in every State. This isn't remotely new, all this decision did was expand one class' meaning slightly.

This is a good example. Maybe Bob has three kids.

Completely irrelevant and not grounds for this decision.

Maybe Bob is cheaper for employer simply because he's paid less than senior worker.

Inserting evidence that wasn't included in the original framing, and thus changing its intent. Also, this is often against labor laws anyway. "It's not wrongful because I'm a bigot, but because I'm a skinflint!" is not the strong defense you think.

Maybe Bob is just easier to work with and not because he's straight and the guy who was fired isn't, but just because he's more positive even in darker times. So how's boss supposed to say that he has better relationship with remaining employee without being labeled homphobe?

He's supposed to be able to demonstrate this. If you can't justify why you fired one person over another, you didn't have legitimate grounds for that decision. That's the point.

Is this going to be an easy cut-and-dry decision? Often not. But that's literally why we have courts.

[Rasulis]

An interesting article from National Review on how the word "sex" was added as a joke into the Civil Right Act in an amendment by an opponent of the bill.

Trolling is a Terrible Way to Write Laws

[Bodonius]

Now when you can choose your gender I dont see a problem. And to be honest are we going to tear down martin luther kings statue because he was a homofob?

[eschatological]

The denial of cert for the sanctuary case is more relevant for me and my work, but a few comments on this:

1) It's a major coup for Roberts to get Gorsuch on board, and have him write the majority piece.

2) This is a bellweather case, and it'll be used to hold Gorsuch's feet to the fire on future cases. I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but Gorsuch essentially said, "Even though the original writers of Title VII could never anticipate this applying to this current situation, it is nevertheless covered by the underlying idea of the law itself." Essentially, Title VII covers discrimination against fundamental and, in most cases, unchangeable (religion being the only exception) aspects of oneself, and even though the writers didn't anticipate sexual orientation or gender identity as covered by it, it now must cover it. This is the least "strict constructionalist" I've ever seen Gorsuch write. Normally he'd fall on the Thomas/Alito dissent on this one, who argued since Congress didn't specify it, too bad. That's what makes his opinion, frankly, so shocking.

3) This opinion distinguished, unlike what people said earlier in the thread, sex from gender identity and sexual orientation, and, most importantly, affirmed that the latter two are separate things to be protected. This opens the door for protected-class status for sexual orientation and gender identity.

4) As I said in our Slack, the House had passed legislation giving protected class status to sexual orientation and gender identity categories already last year, and it's been sitting on McConnell's desk since then. This allows a (slight) political window for McConnell to take credit for LGBTQ "progress" by taking it off the table and letting it pass in the Senate with bipartisan support. The opinion by SCOTUS gives political cover for GOP Senators to vote for it and shrug their shoulders and said, "Hey, SCOTUS basically said we had to." I'm unsure if McConnell has the desire to gain credit with the LGBTQ community, or if they've totally abandoned the Log Cabin Republicans etc, but it might be a political play to make.

[Edge-]

An interesting article from National Review on how the word "sex" was added a joke into the Civil Right Act in an amendment by an opponent of the bill.

Trolling is a Terrible Way to Write Laws

Not as a "joke", as a poison pill. They didn't want it to pass, and assumed that "protecting women" was enough to get the misogynists on Congress to vote it down at the time.

Also, wholly irrelevant and functionally cheerleading for not protecting everyone equally under the law when it comes to employment issues.

We should not be surprised when it applies different standards to do so in different cases, with conservative arguments getting the short end of the stick each time.

I particularly enjoyed to read that conservatives are still finding a way to make themselves the victim in all of this.

That article is garbage.

[Bodonius]

Is even gay a thing anymore if you just can make up gender?
[Infraction]

[BeepBoo]

So wait.. the supreme court can manage to find it in themselves to support this but refuses to entertain any idea of repealing police protections? Lolwut?

This is an absolute win for people who were/are irrationally discriminated against, but I can't make heads or tails of this being something they support with the other being completely off-limits. It would seem very closely related on the political spectrum to me, even if the issues themselves aren't directly related.

[Rasulis]

So wait.. the supreme court can manage to find it in themselves to support this but refuses to entertain any idea of repealing police protections? Lolwut?

This is an absolute win for people who were/are irrationally discriminated against, but I can't make heads or tails of this being something they support with the other being completely off-limits. It would seem very closely related on the political spectrum to me, even if the issues themselves aren't directly related.

Three of the liberal judges also voted against hearing the case. Sotomayor and Thomas were the only two that voted for granting the case a hearing. I think they just don't want to hear the case right now when it is such a hot political potato.

[Lenonis]

disprove whatever wild claims are aimed at them

Careful you don't let that mask slip too far.

Maybe Bob has three kids.

That's illegal.

Maybe Bob is cheaper for employer simply because he's paid less than senior worker.

It's not illegal to pay a less experienced employee less. It's also not illegal to terminate a more experienced employee to hire a less experienced one if you downgrade the role appropriate to the needed experience. Otherwise it gets into murky waters I'm honestly not too clear on.

So how's boss supposed to say that he has better relationship with remaining employee without being labeled homphobe?

Easy. Don't bring up his sexuality. Done. I think you vastly underestimate how difficult it is to win a discrimination lawsuit. It takes a whole lot more than an employee saying "I'm gay and by boss fired me." If you are stupid enough to write a dissertation on the employee being gay and then fire them then you're going to have a problem.

[Kraenen]

Beyond the obvious that one's sexuality or gender shouldn't affect the quality or capability of doing one's work, I wonder how this will play out when a homophobic employer finds out their employee is gay and is more or less forced to work with them. Will they open up and be more tolerant? Start giving them worse opportunities for success and keep them out of the limelight? Maybe most will keep sort of an 'arms-length', neutral relationship. At the very least it's something for an LGBT person to hang on to so they can continue to work for a living.

[Draco-Onis]

Beyond the obvious that one's sexuality or gender shouldn't affect the quality or capability of doing one's work, I wonder how this will play out when a homophobic employer finds out their employee is gay and is more or less forced to work with them. Will they open up and be more tolerant? Start giving them worse opportunities for success and keep them out of the limelight? Maybe most will keep sort of an 'arms-length', neutral relationship. At the very least it's something for an LGBT person to hang on to so they can continue to work for a living.

It will work the same way as racist bosses employ people of color, they will often go out of their way to be more accepting in public while keeping their views private. The only possible good thing about the Trump era is that they feel emboldened to openly be pieces of shit.

[Antiganon]

The interesting part is that it was a 6 to 3 decision. I was expecting 5 to 4.

I've genuinely been impressed with Gorsuch's principles since he took his seat on the bench. Most conservative justices use textualism as a pretext to deny progressive advancement, but he has consistently shown that plain-text readings of the laws in question are the only real deciding factor for him.

Kavanaugh, not so much.

- - - Updated - - -

Beyond the obvious that one's sexuality or gender shouldn't affect the quality or capability of doing one's work, I wonder how this will play out when a homophobic employer finds out their employee is gay and is more or less forced to work with them. Will they open up and be more tolerant? Start giving them worse opportunities for success and keep them out of the limelight? Maybe most will keep sort of an 'arms-length', neutral relationship. At the very least it's something for an LGBT person to hang on to so they can continue to work for a living.

If they start to give somebody different opportunities for advancement and away from front-facing roles that would earn them professional accolades, that would run afoul of Title VII the same as firing them outright.

This will force bigoted employers to keep their bigoted opinions to themselves, away from the workplace, same as for every other protected class.