Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation isn't special, it applies to all orientations.
You're playing word games. Do you think it was non-gays who needed laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Or the able-bodied who needed protection against discrimination.
The law must apply to All to meet constitutional muster, but get real. The groups being protected are gays in one case and the disabled in the other.
I am absolutely right. The EEOC has tried to say that the Civil Rights Act, by implication, covers sexual orientation, but the courts have shot that argument down in flames every single time.
(The EEOC has had better luck in court saying that the Civil Rights Act covers gender identity: they argue that because the CRA covers sex, it also covers sex stereotyping, and that discriminating based on gender identity is really discriminating on the basis of sex stereotyping.)
Read it again very slowly this time and let it sink in.
You're playing word games. Do you think it was non-gays who needed laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Or the able-bodied who needed protection against discrimination.
The law must apply to All to meet constitutional muster, but get real. The groups being protected are gays in one case and the disabled in the other.
But it still covers all equally. The fact that anti-gay bigots discriminate against gays more often than anti-straight bigots discriminate against straights doesn't change that fact.
Well, first of all, Executive Order 07-24 did not create special protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The only thing the EO does is create "programs." The relevant section is:
Quote:
2. A strong program prohibiting discrimination and harassment on account of race, color, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, military or veteran
status, or disability status. This program will include training, and a prompt and confidential
method for expressing complaints.
The legislature can go ahead and write/debate/pass a bill that creates the program (which is what Brownback has already said), and the US District Attorney for the Kansas District already has a Civil Rights Unit that among other things provides for bringing cases to the DoJ under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Nobody was granted any special protection under Executive Order 07-24, so nobody is losing any with 15-02 superseding it. And again, the legislature of both the United States and Kansas can go ahead and make sexual orientation and gender identity specifically protected classes under the Civil Rights Act if they so choose.
Well, first of all, Executive Order 07-24 did not create special protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The only thing the EO does is create "programs." The relevant section is:
The legislature can go ahead and write/debate/pass a bill that creates the program (which is what Brownback has already said), and the US District Attorney for the Kansas District already has a Civil Rights Unit that among other things provides for bringing cases to the DoJ under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Nobody was granted any special protection under Executive Order 07-24, so nobody is losing any with 15-02 superseding it. And again, the legislature of both the United States and Kansas can go ahead and make sexual orientation and gender identity specifically protected classes under the Civil Rights Act if they so choose.
Read it again very slowly this time and let it sink in.
I don't need to read your little google cut-and-paste find again. I've written a review article on this exact topic for which I read basically every federal court decision on the subject.
Again, the EEOC has tried to say that the Civil Rights Act, by implication, covers sexual orientation, but the courts have shot that argument down in flames every single time.
The EEOC has had better luck in court saying that the Civil Rights Act covers gender identity: they argue that because the CRA covers sex, it also covers sex stereotyping, and that discriminating based on gender identity is really discriminating on the basis of sex stereotyping.
I don't need to read your little google cut-and-paste find again. I've written a review article on this exact topic for which I read basically every federal court decision on the subject.
Again, the EEOC has tried to say that the Civil Rights Act, by implication, covers sexual orientation, but the courts have shot that argument down in flames every single time.
The EEOC has had better luck in court saying that the Civil Rights Act covers gender identity: they argue that because the CRA covers sex, it also covers sex stereotyping, and that discriminating based on gender identity is really discriminating on the basis of sex stereotyping.
SURE you did!!!!
Quote:
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undermined the reasoning of both lines of cases and, as a result, recent cases have held that LGBT people may be entitled to protection under Title VII in some circumstances. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Supreme Court held that Title VII was not limited to discrimination on the basis of one’s biological status as a man or a woman but instead prohibits the “entire spectrum” of discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes. In Price Waterhouse, plaintiff Ann Hopkins was denied a partnership at an accounting firm because she was deemed to be insufficiently “feminine.” Id. at 234–35. To improve her chances for partnership, Hopkins was told she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” Id. at 235. The employer argued that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination based on gender stereotypes. The Supreme Court disagreed. “As for the legal relevance of sex stereotyping, we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group, for ‘in forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.’” Id. at 251 (internal citations omitted). Nine years later, in Oncale v. Sundowner, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), the Supreme Court removed another barrier when it held that a plaintiff could state a Title VII claim where sexual harassment was perpetrated by a person of the same sex.
Based on these Supreme Court decisions, courts across the country have held that LGBT people may be entitled to protection under Title VII. For example, in Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002), the district court denied summary judgment for an employer in a Title VII suit brought by a lesbian employee. The plaintiff presented evidence that throughout her employment, her female supervisor made disparaging and harassing comments based on gender stereotypes, including: “Oh, I thought you were a man”, “Do you wear the dick in the relationship?” and, “I thought you wore the pants.” In ruling in favor of the employee, the court relied upon a recent Ninth Circuit case— Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)—abrogating its earlier decision in DeSantis and holding that a male employee is entitled to redress under Title VII if he can prove that he was discriminated against for failing to comport with stereotypical notions of how men should appear and behave. Similarly, a concurring opinion in the en banc decision Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002), revived a Title VII claim brought by a gay male plaintiff who had presented evidence that his former coworkers taunted him by calling him feminine names and endearments, and ridiculed him for walking in a feminine manner.
With respect to transgender people, courts have similarly held that if a transgender person is targeted for failing to conform to stereotypes about how men and women are expected to appear and behave, they may be protected under Title VII. In Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000), the plaintiff was a transgender prisoner who sued under the Gender Motivated Violence Act after being assaulted by a guard. Relying on the old case law on this issue, including Ulane, the guard argued that sex discrimination laws do not protect transgender people. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that the “initial judicial approach taken in cases such as Holloway [and Ulane] has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse.” Id. at 1201. The court concluded that “[d]iscrimination because one fails to act in the way expected of a man or a woman is forbidden under Title VII,” and that a transgender person who is targeted on this basis is entitled to protection.
Forty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there is still no explicit federal protection for LGBT employees. In at least some circumstances, however, courts are increasingly finding that LGBT employees are entitled to protection under Title VII.
Every heterosexual I've every worked with has blabbed about their sexual preferences all over the office to everyone. They talk about their straight spouses - many even keep pictures of their heterosexual sex partners on their desk. Many have brought their heterosexual sex-mates to company holiday parties. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
All you seriously telling me that none of your coworkers know what you sexual orientation is?
What about putting your spouse on your insurance? That tells your boss about your sexual orientation.
There is no EXPLICIT protections but they can use Title VII of the CRA. Do better research next time.
Name me 1 Circuit Court case in which a US Federal Appeals Court has held that the Civil Rights Act provides protection on the basis of sexual orientation. Name me just 1.
Really, so a straight person can be fired for being straight? I do not think so. This is targetted at gays specifically, to allow firing of them or denying them a job, just for their sexual orientation.
Unless they are trying to pick someone up in the bathroom, there is no way to know their sexual orientation. How do you know someone is gay unless they put it out there???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
