Supreme Court will look into cases involving sexual orientation or identity discrimination

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would be taking a look into three cases involving people being fired based on their sexual orientation or identity. The issue they are trying to overcome is whether Title VII in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, also protects LBGT people from discrimination as well. These cases will begin to be heard during the fall, and a decision is estimated to be made by June 2020.

1. While the Civil Rights Act does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or transgender status, the world is in a far different place than it was originally penned. Federal appeals courts in Chicago and New York have already ruled that gay and lesbian employees are entitled to protection from discrimination. In addition, Cincinnati federal appeals court has extended protections for transgender people.

2. The first case is that of a gay skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, in New York who claimed his firing was due to his sexual orientation. As he was preparing for a tandem dive, one in which the divers are tightly harnessed together, he tried to comfort the woman he was diving with by telling her he was gay. Her boyfriend later called to complain, which lead to his firing. When brought to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals they ruled 10-3 in favor of the instructor, abandoning their previous stance on Title VII noting that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination,” and, “legal doctrine evolves.”

3. The second case is one in which the federal appeals court ruled against the claims of a gay employee of Clayton County, Georgia. Gerald Bostock says he was fired purely based on his sexuality. However, the county argued that his firing was no because he was gay, but rather the results of an audit of funds he managed. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his claims noting a 1979 decision that said “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

4. The third case deals with a funeral home firing a transgender woman in Michigan. When brought to a Cincinnati appeals court they ruled that the firing is considered sex discrimination under federal law. They continued that “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” which is how the law is written, does in fact also cover these groups.