Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
What was the question?

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, consolidated w/ Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda (deceased)

Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination "because of . . . sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC

1. Whether the word "sex" in Title VII's prohibition on discrimination "because of . . . sex," 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), meant "gender identity" and included "transgender status" when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964.
2. Whether Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), prohibits employers from applying sex-specific policies according to their employees' sex rather than their gender identity.

--
yes, despite every ahh ...ontological proposition and category error argued by planitiffs or defendants besides visceral protest against ARCH-CONSERVATIVE RAPIST Kavanaugh, cascading from the peanut gallery. watch.

And, yes, amendment of the CRA is redundant. Ima tell you just one reason why: The bill of particulars one may prefer is not "settled" science. Ain't nobody in the odious got time nor aptitude to "debate" and enumerate every variant by phase of moon. So y'all best get reacquainted with concepts of determiners--no one, no, none, all, every, any, a, person--as codified in the first instance by the US Constitution and Declaration of Human Rights.

Fly your flag. The burden of proving discrimination by your employer will remain yours, personally, to bear and file < 180 Lily Ledbetter days. Better keep records. Good luck.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Oct 11th, 2019 at 04:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
y'all have heard of CA prop 8. I checked eurotrib search. archived: US supreme court strikes down Defense of Marriage act and kills Prop 8 - live | Law | guardian.co.uk (2013)

What you probably haven't done is read Perry v. Schwartzenegger (2010). The judgment laid the rational foundation of the SCOTUS decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), then Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

Obergefell:KENNEDY delivered the opinion joined by GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN.

ROBERTS, filed a dissent joined by SCALIA and THOMAS; SCALIA filed a dissenting dissent joined by THOMAS;
THOMAS filed a dissenting dissent joined by SCALIA;
ALITO filed a dissenting dissent joined by SCALIA and THOMAS.

KAVANAUGH and GORSUCH are NEW! swingers whose judicial competence is neither well nor rationally understood by the #MeToo "generation" of media consumers, retaining attys on contingency basis.

Among seven (7) purported defenses for Prop 8 were two particularly specious propositions, "traditional" gender and sexual intercourse ("orientation"), that were rejected by the courts. The ct's logic bears on their inapplicability to labor law, too, under the CRA and 14th Amd. Wherever you see the word "marriage" (below) insert the word "employment."

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.
[...]
Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs' equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.
GIVEN the cert questions (above), SCOTUS judgment is unlikely now to differentiate "sex," "gender," or "sexual orientation" --despite appellant Funeral Home disingenuous religious freedom "identity". It also follows, GIVEN the current ct's composition and rulings since 2015, SCOTUS order forthcoming is more likely to defer to "states' rights" and political processes (sovereignty) than to incorporate ("nationalize") its ruling with US Code and 14th Amd. In conlaw or statute some states already provide prohibition of specific (LGBTQ) discrimination; all provide for categorical prohibition of sex discrimination.

archived
incorporation doctrine

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Oct 19th, 2019 at 11:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ping

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Nov 29th, 2019 at 10:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series