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 ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series