US Supreme Court Bans Sexual Orientation Discrimination

A man is waving a rainbow flag in front of the United States Supreme Court on Monday June 15.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Monday, June 15. She found that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark of American law and the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, also applies to employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The victory of the homosexual community is clear. Two judges appointed by Republican presidents, John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, joined the four judges chosen by Democratic presidents. The second, appointed by Donald Trump, is also the author of the judgment.

The quarrel related to a passage of article VII of this law which prohibits discriminations linked “Race, color, religion, sex or national origin”. The text addressed the problems faced by women in the labor market. Interpretation of the word “Sex” has long been restrictive. The historic “Bostock v. Clayton County (Georgia) “extends the application of this law to gay and transgender people.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires this person for traits or actions that he would not have questioned in members of another sex, writes Neil Gorsuch. Sex plays a necessary and indisputable role in the decision, which Article VII prohibits. “

A controversy opened a decade ago

Neil Gorsuch has responded to criticism, including from appellate courts, who say that lawmakers did not want to anticipate open proceedings decades later. “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Law probably did not foresee that their work would lead to this particular result. They probably weren’t thinking about many of the consequences that have become apparent over the years, including the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of motherhood or the sexual harassment of men. “, he believes:

But the limits of the imagination of legislators provide no reason to ignore the requirements of the law. When the explicit terms of one law give us an answer and extra-textual considerations suggest another, there can be no challenge. Only the written word constitutes the law, and everyone has the right to benefit from it.

The ruling brings to an end a controversy that started a decade ago. Gerald Bostock, an official in Clayton County, Georgia, challenged his dismissal on the grounds of improper use of the funds for which he was responsible, saying that it was in fact a sanction against his participation in a rally homosexual. A parachuting instructor, Donald Zarda, who has since killed himself in an exercise, had taken a similar step after his dismissal by his employer. The eviction occurred after the instructor disclosed her sexual orientation to make a client more comfortable before a tandem jump.

A third case involved a transgender person, fired after telling his employer, a Michigan undertaker, that she now wanted to appear dressed as a woman, the sex of her choice.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *