The case, heard Wednesday before a full panel of 7th Circuit Court judges, revolves around a South Bend, Ind., math teacher who contends she was repeatedly denied promotions and fired from the Indiana community college where she worked because she is a lesbian.
What does the case boil down to? Many think it will be the definition of "sex." What does that word mean today. Does it mean the same as it did in 1964?
During arguments in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, a few judges repeatedly interrupted the school’s lawyer, who argued the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — which bans workplace discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex — applies only to whether a person is male or female, not their sexual orientation.
“Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?” Judge Richard Posner reportedly asked. When the attorney admitted he couldn’t think of anyone, Posner fired back again: “So, what’s the big deal? … Are we bound by what people thought in 1964?”
Hively’s lawyer pointed to a 1989 Supreme Court decision that said Title VII prohibits sex discrimination based on not conforming to gender norms, explaining how this presented an equal-rights gap for their current case: “You can’t discriminate against a woman because she has a Harley or has tattoos or has Bears tickets,” he said, “but you are told you can fire her because she is lesbian.”
If the court rules in Hively’s favor in the next several weeks, it would be the first U.S. appellate court to rule that the Civil Rights Act covers sexual-orientation discrimination. – nymag.com
The 7th Circuit panel is taking the case under advisement, but has not set a time for a ruling. Whatever the ruling, this case may likely go to the Supreme Court, but if President Trump is able to appoint a conservative judge, then we may know how this would end. There is hope though, no?
How many states do not offer protection for us being us? Where in the nation should you still keep one foot in the closet when it comes to being out at work? I'm not sure I can answer that question. Do a simple Google search and the first three entries are:
Wait, it went up according to The Huff? The grey area is that you are and are not protected in the same state. It all depends on your employer. Click on the image below for a larger version.
The map is still looking pretty somber. As a positive, it does resemble where we were just about a two years ago with our marriage equality map.
h/t: nymag.com
I wonder whats going to
I wonder whats going to happen when God judges the lgbt that refuse to change there lifestyles?
I am not worried about how
I am not worried about how God will judge me when I die, but as a taxpayer I would like equal protection under the law while I am still living.
Scalia was not going to
Scalia was not going to support this idea, so a conservative replacement for his seat is a wash. If this gets to the court before another justice retires, and justice Kennedy is in the majority, then it's all good. With marriage and employment rights, goals will be complete.
I remember when Trump first announced his candidacy, he was very supportive of marriage and employment rights, and he even mentioned supporting cases moving through the courts on employment discrimination. He did have to move somewhat to the right, but I guarantee you that he, and most of the republican party will be tremendously relieved if this is resolved by the courts, and they won't have to pass ENDA.