Justice Department Argues Landmark Civil Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gay People

The Department of Justice argued in a legal brief on Wednesday that the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation, a position advocacy groups condemned as “shameful” and “politically driven.”

DOJ lawyers, arguing under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which they said the department did not believe the law ― which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin ― applied to lesbian and gay people. The brief was filed as part of a lawsuit filed by a now-deceased skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, who said he was fired for his sexual orientation. His lawyers contend the dismissal violated of the act’s Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination.

which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin

originally posted by: Xcalibur254




So remember yesterday when Trump announced banning transgenders from serving in the military and his supporters claimed that it was just the administration being practical not anti-LGBTQ? I think it has become a bit harder to make that argument following this announcement.

which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bone75

In 2012 and 2015 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the Civil Rights Act.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bone75

In 2012 and 2015 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the Civil Rights Act.

originally posted by: Ohanka

which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin

Sexual orientation literally isn't mentioned. So it doesn't protect gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Or straight people for that matter.

Maybe the Obama administration, or any other administration should've passed a law that covered that. Oh well.

As some courts have observed, male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed. Title VII prohibits "discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex" in the "terms" or "conditions" of employment. Our holding that this includes sexual harassment must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that "t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). We have held that this not only covers "terms" and "condi tions" in the narrow contractual sense, but "evinces a congressional intent to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in employment." Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).