Our website is made possible by displaying online ads to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by whitelisting our site.

Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBT workers

First slide


UPDATED 061820

WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 vote June 15, the Supreme Court said LGBT people are protected from job discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," said Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the opinion in the case argued at the start of the court's term last October.

He pointed out that when Congress enacted Title VII, it might not have expected "this particular result." But he also said Congress likely didn't see many interpretations of the federal law coming, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees.

"Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit," Gorsuch wrote.

Dissenting votes were from Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.

The decision was for two consolidated cases about fired gay employees and a separate case concerning a fired transgender worker who had sued for employment discrimination after being fired.

At issue in this case is the wording in the Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. The court had to determine if discrimination that was not allowed based on sex applied to sexual orientation as well as gender identity.

Federal appeals courts have been divided on this application of the law for the past three years since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit became the first to rule that homosexuals should be protected from job discrimination by the civil rights law.

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he is deeply concerned that the court's decision "has effectively redefined the legal meaning of 'sex' in our nation's civil rights law." He also said in his June 15 statement the ruling was an "injustice that will have implications in many areas of life."

"By erasing the beautiful differences and complementary relationship between man and woman, we ignore the glory of God's creation and harm the human family, the first building block of society," he added.

Bishop Michael F. Burbidge issued a statement June 18. “In this week’s decision in Bostock v. ClaytonCounty, the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds and imposed a legal definition which promotes a confused understanding of the nature and design of the human person. In seeking to address an employment issue, the majority opinion assigns to the word ‘sex’ a meaning that those who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act never would have imagined, and which Congress itself has declined to adopt. Indeed, the Court’s definition of ‘sex’ is so broad that it effectively empties the word of any real significance whatsoever.”

He continued, “This decision potentially may have impact far beyond civil rights and employment laws. The Supreme Court erroneously decided that there is nothing distinct about being male or female. This decision, now written into the Court’s precedent, only perpetuates our culture’s misunderstandings about the very nature of the human person. 

“The truth and beauty of being male and female is willed by Our Creator and is evident in nature,” his statement read. “This distinction and complementarity form the building blocks of the family, which is the very foundation of any healthy and stable society. Let us pray that God, our Creator and Redeemer, continue to enlighten our hearts and minds to perceive and live this truth, now and always.”

Noel Francisco, solicitor general for the Trump administration, argued on the side of the employers during oral arguments last October, saying, "Sex means whether you're male or female, not whether you're gay or straight."

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the issue of people being fired for their sexual identity had to be examined, noting: "We can't deny that homosexuals are being fired merely for being who they are."

Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote more than 100 pages in their dissent and said the court's majority seemed to be writing legislation, not law, in this decision.

"The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed," Alito said. "The question is whether Congress did that in 1964," and he said it "indisputably did not."

Kavanaugh, in a separate dissent, said the court was attempting to "rewrite ordinary meaning and remake American law," acting more like members of Congress than judges.

The decision, hailed by supporters, was questioned by its opponents who wondered how it would hold up in religious liberty cases. The opinion itself mentions this saying: "How these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases."

It also notes that "other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful consideration, none of the employers before us today represent in this court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way."

A number of religious groups, including the USCCB, weighed in with friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of the employers in this case. The USCCB brief said the added employee protection could impact faith-based schools, health care providers and homeless shelters that operate by "religious and moral convictions."

Dozens of companies and advocacy groups filed briefs in support of the employees.

Currently, more than 20 states and the District of Columbia have laws in place to protect against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with exceptions for religious employers.

Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel of Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, told reporters before the Supreme Court's term began that if the court views these employee cases as discrimination, there will likely be new lawsuits and "massive liabilities with churches, schools and religious organizations" that expect their employees to follow certain standards.

He said there are exceptions for those in ministerial roles with a religious function. But no matter how these exemptions are interpreted, there is likely to be a lot of confusion, he said.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit legal group, which supports religious freedom and other issues, said in a June 15 statement: "Americans must be able to rely on what the law says, and it is disappointing that a majority of the justices were unwilling to affirm that commonsense principle. Redefining sex to mean gender identity will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women's shelters and many other contexts."

Archbishop Gomez said: "Every human person is made in the image and likeness of God and, without exception, must be treated with dignity, compassion, and respect. Protecting our neighbors from unjust discrimination does not require redefining human nature."

© Arlington Catholic Herald 2020