Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Nobody is "officially" fired for being Gay, Black, Ugly, or whatever.

Supreme Court wasting their time (and our money) again.

Why don't they rule on big items that affect most Americans...like can I be forced to wear a stupid face mask in Walmart/Target.

originally posted by: Fools
Guess its time for me to come out of the closet? If I pretend to be gay will I have to prove that I am gay? What if I am a gay man who is straight? I mean isn't that acceptable since a guy can think he is a woman and be classified as a woman? Can't I be straight and classify myself as gay therefore protecting me a little more if anyone ever wants to fire me? ANd believe me, I have been fired and had people want to fire me in my lifetime. But now that I am gay (even though I am straight) I can go to HR --- I can go to a lawyer! Shoot, I may never have to work again if I get the right lawyer.

THIS IS F'ing AWESOME!

Gaypride festivals here I come!

You can still be fired if you are gay and violate company policies, like not showing up to work, missing too many days, being late too often, coming to work under the influence, putting co-workers at risk, etc... It's not like gay people are getting special protections, they still have to be a good employee. Am I wrong?

a reply to: Fools

You have the same protection as a gay person. You can't be fired for being straight and they can't be fired for being gay.

Why are you acting like they're getting some special privilege you don't get?

a reply to: carewemust

So civil rights are a waste of time but a minor inconvenience is a big item?

Good to see you have your priorities straight.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Human resource personnel take classes to avoid lawsuits.

Especially when you consider that you cant ask someone their sexual orientation or religion of choice.

Yet they still happen. Why? Because people can't help themselves and do dumb s***. I see it all the time. We take compliance training and then someone is making lewd jokes in a meeting a week later.

That sounds like my three buddies up in Joisey who work for Verizon, albeit they're not at telling the lewd jokes at work. It's done over messenger.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Human resource personnel take classes to avoid lawsuits.

Especially when you consider that you cant ask someone their sexual orientation or religion of choice.

Yet they still happen. Why? Because people can't help themselves and do dumb s***. I see it all the time. We take compliance training and then someone is making lewd jokes in a meeting a week later.

Hiring odds the older I get keep getting slimmer and slimmer, I see. I wouldn't be the first nor the last, to see a woman on a bicycle, declare it's illegal (for peddling the p#y) annnnd be fired within my first half hour.

But it would be funny and frankly, funny is more important than who can scowl in disapproval the hardest. Laugh and let humor do it's job. Otherwise, it seems it's just a good way to weed out places that are less perky than advertised to work at.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
The rulings are circumvented by employers in these instances. It's just a feel-good court ruling.

Basically, you as a manager are covered if you document.

To answer a lawsuit, you pull the complainant’s file and show that complainant has a history of misbehavior; that you came up with a performance improvement plan, and complainant failed repeatedly to improve.

Be transparent and document. You know, manage.

a reply to: MRinder

You're not wrong.

The fact that the SC had to rule on this in 2020 is absurd. The Civil Rights Act made discrimination illegal based on sex nearly 60 years ago.

They had to rule on the matter because of the kinds of crap you see in this thread claiming that gay folks aren't ever discriminated against.

As far as gender identity goes ... that's even more ridiculous. It's an self-identification matter and a dress code matter. If an employer wants to fire someone who was hired and trained because of either of these categories, they're rather stupid anyway.

This was a good decision, and necessary. I was very proud of Gorsuch that he stood by his libertarian values and joined with the liberal justices.

Even though Kavenaugh dissented (based on a reasonable argument at least) he still made some excellent points while doing so.

Good day for the Court.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Ummm, okay. Cool.

I was reading this thread out loud and suddenly Gunther, my sad German intern, started weeping tears of joy.

Not sure why.

I think he's a sissy.

a reply to: Graysen

That's how most places work.
C.Y.A...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think people believe that discrimination doesn't happen, but I do know that it's fairly easy to cover up.

Now if a company has 500 employees and no minorities or gays it's pretty obvious.
Even though they cant ask if someone is gay.

a reply to: carewemust

And yet it's not like it's a rare thing for a company to be found in violation of Title VII. So clearly it serves a purpose.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm glad to finally see a decision on this. I remember early in in Trump's presidency the DOJ claimed that sexual orientation was not protected by Title VII. Well now, according to the Supreme Court, this administration was wrong.

This was a very interesting case, with very thought-provoking arguments, and it might/should have farther reaching positive effects in that it basically establishes that employers cannot tell employees how to live their sex. That can only be a good thing.

In the case of the funeral employee being fired, their complaint was based on a policy establishing different dress codes for men and women, with women being required to wear skirts/dresses and men not.

In the case of the gay employees, the employers would have no problem with a woman having a relationship with a man, therefore they cannot have a problem with a man having a relationship with a man.

Having said this, employers can and will of course find other reasons to fire (or not hire) anyone they so choose. And that's a good thing too. I know that sounds contradictory. But I consider it a much bigger problem having an employer telling their employees how to "woman" or "man" correctly, than I do with an employer that just says, "This isn't the right fit for us. Here's a letter of recommendation and good luck."

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Ummm, okay. Cool.

I was reading this thread out loud and suddenly Gunther, my sad German intern, started weeping tears of joy.

Not sure why.

I think he's a sissy.

You need to fire him.

A general question for information really: Does the rule apply to transgender employees who change during employment?

For example, if I hire Dennis for a job and one day he turns up as Denise what happens then?

It might not matter in some jobs but in others it might be a legitimate issue.



(full disclosure: I didn't read the ruling)

a reply to: carewemust

Not true.

Just last Friday..

On Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it had finalized a rule that will effectively reverse a policy that prohibited health care providers from discriminating against transgender patients. The original 2016 rule—Section 1557 of Obamacare—expanded protections by broadly interpreting gender, "which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female."

The Trump administration said Friday it will enforce the nondiscrimination clause "by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology."

Moreover...The Trump Administration displays their talent for celebrating special dates!

[

Those in agreement with the new rule cite it as a necessary means to do away with any confusion surrounding the legal interpretation of "sex discrimination." Severino continued explaining that "the substantive protections prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex remain in effect."

The rule is set to go into effect by mid-August and arrives two weeks into June's annual Pride month. In a darker irony, its finalization also marks the same day of the four-year anniversary and remembrance of the Pulse nightclub shooting victims, which claimed the lives of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida on June 12, 2016.

www.complex.com...

This SCOTUS ruling throws the Trump Administration decision to redefine discrimination out the window.

a reply to: carewemust

Why don't they rule on big items that affect most Americans...like can I be forced to wear a stupid face mask in Walmart/Target.

You need the Supreme court to decide that you live in America, where property owners set the rules on their property? I think you may want to consider moving somewhere where the government owns everything. Like China, or N Korea. You would be happy there.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I think he's a sissy.

He's a PROTECTED sissy now.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think people believe that discrimination doesn't happen, but I do know that it's fairly easy to cover up.

Now if a company has 500 employees and no minorities or gays it's pretty obvious.
Even though they cant ask if someone is gay.

Well, my State, Georgia, has a "right to hire-right to fire" provision. You can be fired for no reason.

However, even in GA, if you are fired for reasons that violate your civil rights, you have a claim for damages, and now so do gay and trans folks uniformly across the US.

I'm not sure why anyone would try to disparage this.