Tuesday October 8th, the Supreme Court questioned the protection of gay and transgender discrimination in the workplace. There is no law preventing the LGBTQ+ community from being fired based on their identity. The justices heard two hours of testimonies and arguments for three cases in which two gay workers and one transgender worker were fired by their employers. The three workers sued, claiming the action was an act of unlawful discrimination.
The court’s liberal justices agreed with the arguments that gay and transgender workers are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law bans employers from discrimination against their employees in the instance of sex, race, color, nationality, and religion. Some justices appeared skeptical while others sympathized with the plaintiffs’ claims.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch implied that one’s sex sometimes contributes to the factor of firing someone of a certain sexual orientation. Gorsuch says, “in what linguistic formulation would one say that sex - biological gender - has nothing to do with what happened in this case?” In turn, he later suggested that the court might be overstepping its boundaries and should just leave it to Congress to legislate on the subject; saying it would cause a “massive social upheaval.”
The Trump Administration argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. A legal fight back in 2015, focused on the meaning of “sex” in Title VII. Plaintiffs argued that consequently, discrimination against workers who are gay or transgender is illegal. Liberal justices seemed to appear skeptical of the arguments made by the Trump Administration’s lawyer. Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights, protested outside the courthouse while, a smaller group of opposing members, stood there too. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would give gay and transgender workers better protection and a ruling against them would mean that those workers would not be protected and still be subject to the discriminatory treatment of their employers.
Read this article and answer the following questions.
1) on the evidence given in the article, do you believe the justices will rule in favor of the plaintiffs or not? Explain.
2) Which justice’s argument do you agree with the most and why?
3) Has there ever been an instance when you have been treated unfairly? When and why do you think it happened to you?
4) If the law is upheld then how do you think it will affect our community in the long run? And if it isn’t?
1. I believe that the justices will rule in favor of the two gay men and transgender person because they have evidence that protects them from being fired on such grounds. This is displayed by the plaintiffs when they referenced the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, it comes down to liberal versus conservative justices.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Justice Gorsuch in the sense that the Civil Rights Act is to far in the dust to be used in a case like this, and that putting the LGBTQ+ community under the Civil Rights Act could end up doing more damage than good. It was smart of him to be considerate of the future effects this case could have, but Congress also has a bias, so by sending this case to Congress he might have made a mistake.
3. A time I have been unfairly treated by my parents. Even when I come to them with a valid argument they would dismiss me without even considering it. Although it is frustrating not having my opinion heard, I have a lot of respect for them no matter what.
4. This case puts all judges in a lose-lose situation. If the law is upheld then the conservatives will become upset, but if the law is not upheld then the liberals will become upset. Me, living in a liberal area have seen the power of a community at work especially when it comes to sensitive topics like this, so I wonder if this decision will make people upset or make people come together.
1. The justices should but will not rule in favor of the plaintiffs. The basis of the case is that the use of the word ‘sex’ in Title VII refers to sexual orientation as well as gender, but at that time, it did not. While applying Title VII protection to sexual orientation is the right thing to do, the Supreme Court is not based on only on opinion, but rather legal grounding. The court will not rule in favor of the plaintiffs because the legal ground for the case is too shaky for it to be conclusively decided, so it will come down to liberal and conservative justices, of which there are 5 conservatives and 4 liberals, meaning that the court will likely rule against the plaintiffs.
ReplyDelete2. I agree most with Justice Alito because to me it is clear that in 1964, no legislation would have been passed that protected LGBTQ rights. At the time the Civil Rights Act was passed, LGBTQ rights were a much smaller issue than they are today, so when the drafters of the bill used the word ‘sex’, they intended to cover biological sex and not sexual orientation. However, I agree with Justice Kagan that these firings would not have happened if the plaintiffs were not members of the LGBTQ community, but the legal argument is too weak for the court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
3. I am often treated unfairly when I am with my cousins because I am the youngest out of all of them, so they either exclude me or don’t treat me in ways that they treat others. Luckily I have not been treated unfairly a lot but being treated badly feels terrible no matter what circumstances it is under.
4. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what the law says, so if the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, more people would be protected from discrimination, taking the right step towards equality. However, there will be a huge backlash if the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiffs because millions will be open to discrimination and they will not be protected by the law. There will be a number of positives if the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and a number of negatives if they rule against them.
1. I agree with Bradford when he says that the Supreme Court will rule against the plaintiffs. I think this because making a verdict on the this case will be very hard based on the fact that although this case has something to do with gender and Title VII. But at the same time it doesn't, which is kind of confusing but the supreme court while rule against this case because "the legal ground is just too shaky" for it to be 100% decided.
Delete2. I agree the most with Justice Sotomayor because it seems like she wants to vote in favor of the plaintiffs. She asks "At what point does the court continue to permit invidious discrimination?" When I read this I started to think about it and she is completely right. When is the court or even the whole country going to stop permitting discrimination like this or similar based on race or religion. This is something that really has to be changed and I think Justice Sotomayor agrees.
3. There's never really been an instance that I've been treated unfairly that's been directly to me that I can think of. But if I were to be treated unfairly I think, I may be wrong but it would probably based on race. I think this because I'm hispanic and recently there have been a lot of discrimination against hispanics and people of color.
4.If the law is upheld then I think there will be a lot of people against this, and although I think the law should be upheld some people may to agree. I think because of this disagreement it could cause protests by people against this law and discrimination could get worse.
1. Although I believe that the Justices should vote in favor of the plaintiffs, I'm not sure of the outcome. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination of an employee based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The conservative justices argue that the word "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 references one's gender at birth, not their sexual orientation. On the other hand, liberal Justice Sotomayor says, "At what point does the court continue to permit invidious discrimination?" When it comes down to it, both sides have rocky evidence that could go either way which is why it all depends on whether a Conservative Justice votes for the plaintiffs, since it is four Liberal Justices against five Conservative.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Justice Sotomayor because despite what the Civil Rights Act meant about the word "sex", it is definitely far past the time that LGBTQ+ people be given the same protection and rights as others. Although I doubt that when the Civil Rights Act wrote the word "sex" they were talking about people who identified as transgender, it is not fair that people are not getting treated the same and is a clear example of discrimination.
3. Although I have not been treated unfairly on a large and/or important issue such as this one and many others, often times my parents excuse my brother of his actions because he's younger, while I would get a worse punishment.
4. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, then people who identify in the LGBTQ+ community would not be allowed to be discriminated against or fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. Furthermore, it would be stopping a lot of unfair treatment and getting closer to equality. If the court rules against the plaintiffs, then not only would that allow the discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community, but also keep many people unjustly at risk for loosing their jobs.
ReplyDelete1) I agree with Valentina and Bradford that the plaintiffs will not win the case. As it says in the article, the Title VII says employers cannot discriminate upon their employees based on “sex as well as race, color, national origin and religion.” Sexual orientation is not included in that list, and it’s not the same as gender, no matter what Gorsuch says. I think the Supreme Court should vote for the plaintiffs because it shouldn’t matter what someone’s sexual orientation is in their job. However, the plaintiffs will not win because as Bradford says, the Supreme Court “ is not based on only on opinion, but rather legal grounding.”
2) I agree with Justice Sotomayor because she is basically saying the Supreme Court shouldn’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, gender, or sexual identity. She says “At what point does the court continue to permit invidious discrimination?”, which I agree with. The plaintiffs committed no crimes, and they should be able to keep their jobs if they work hard enough. They shouldn’t be fired just because they are gay or transgender.
3) I haven’t really been treated unfairly on a large scale, but there are some instances when it comes to me and my siblings. My parents tend to think of me as the troublemaker because I am the oldest of four children, so sometimes they blame me for problems I didn’t create without even listening to my side of the story.
4) I think if the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the plaintiffs because it shows our community doesn’t discriminate against someone’s sexual identity. A lot of LGBTQ members would be protected if the plaintiffs win this case, but if they lose, that sends out a message to LGBTQ members that their differences make them susceptible to losing their jobs.
1) I agree with most of my fellow students that the plaintiffs with not win. In Anja's writing it says "The Trump Administration argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include sexual orientation or gender identity" which states that the act doesn't include sexual orientation or gender identity so they wont win they case.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with Neil Gorsuch because he views the situation from many perspectives. In the text Neil says "that one’s sex sometimes contributes to the factor of firing someone of a certain sexual orientation", this can happen and for that I agree with him.
3) I have been treated unfairly by my siblings. Sometimes I would ask to have a voice in the conversation or be included in their games, but I would be ignored and not considered. This happend to me because I was the youngest and had no power.
4) If the law is upheld then it will show how our community doesn't discriminate against other people because of what the identify as. This would show the good in the world and discrimination can end.
1. I agree with Bradford that the court should rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but realistically will not. The Civil Rights Act states that workers can not be discriminated against based on their race, sex, and religion, but some people may argue that sexual orientation and sex are two different things and that the Civil Rights Act does not include sexual orientation. The amount of conservative and liberal justices on the court is also crucial to the ruling of the plaintiffs, so because there are 4 liberal justices and 5 conservative justices, the court will most likely rule against the plaintiffs.
ReplyDelete2. The justice I agree with the most is Justice Sotomayor because she believes that the Supreme Court should not discriminate against people based on their gender or sexual orientation. In this situation of plaintiffs did not do anything wrong and for them to get fired over sexual orientation is so hateful and discriminative.
3. The only case I have been treated unfairly is with my siblings and family, but I have never been discriminated against on a large issue which is something I should not take for granted. Sometimes I forget how lucky I am and a small fight with my sister feels like the worst things, but in reality, people are getting forced out of their jobs for expressing themselves and things they can't control which is a much larger issue.
4. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, then more people would feel protected by the law and hopefully feel that they are in a safer working environment. If the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiffs I think that there will be a lot of backlashes because so many people would be wrongfully discriminated against.
1, From the given info from the article I believe that the Supreme Court will not rule in favor of the plaintiffs but even though they should. Over the past few years the supreme court, senate, and the house have become increasingly divided by party lines as they have different opinions on every single topic there is. This will remain true through this case as well.
ReplyDelete2, The justice I agree with the most is Justice Sotomayor. I strongly agree with her point that the government and the court keeps discriminating against gay, transgender and LGBTQ individuals without much backlash from the outside. Sotomayor is pointing out that this needs to be noticed and stopped and that the Supreme Court is the one institution that can contribute the most to stop this problem.
3, As of now I can not recall an instance where I have been treated unfairly. But when I hear of others being treated unfairly it is usually because the offender usually has some kind of bias against the victim. A bias that is sometimes not rightfully so and one out of pure speculation.
4, If the law is upheld it will have a huge effect on the community as it improves the rights of LGBTQ citizens and demonstrates that it is effective in a real-life scenario. If the case isn't upheld then it will also have a big effect as it shows that even though there is a law protecting something it still may not be recognized.
1. I agree with Bradford’s claim that the justices will most likely not rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Obviously, the fairest option would be for the Plaintiffs to win the case, but there is a greater chance the justices won’t rule in favor simply because the civil rights law they are using to support their cause, doesn’t mention factors such as sexual orientation. And the lack of that specific detail leads political leaders such as the Trump administration to fight back against the plaintiff’s argument.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s statement which was, “At what point does the court continue to permit invidious discrimination”? Sotomayor is trying to make a point that the court is allowing too many unfair discriminations that includes heavily subjective topics, such as basis of sex in this case.
3. My experience of being treated unfairly does match nearly the amount of importance of this issue and many others. My parent usually blame me for any problems between my younger brother and I, without any of our insights. Simply because I am the older sibling, I am responsible for the conflict off default.
4. The Supreme Court most likely won’t rule in favor of the plaintiffs, and if that’s the case, there will be intense controversy about the Courts decision. People may start to wonder if the Court actually takes peoples thoughts into consideration. On the other hand, if the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, politicians may start to question if the Court takes the law into consideration.
1) I believe that the supreme court’s ruling will not be in favor of the plaintiffs. Many of my peers believe that sex protection is not the same thing as sexual identity protection, but I disagree. “sex” in my eyes applies to much more than the gender assigned at birth and should certainly include sexual and gender identity. However, this is also a commonly challenged belief and the case will ultimately come down to what the judges themselves consider sex protection to include. Considering that the majority of the supreme court is conservative the ruling will, unfortunately, go as predicted, a five to four majority against the plaintiffs.
ReplyDelete2) I strongly agree with Justice Elena Kagan that the rights of the LGBTQ community should be protected under Title VII. “Justice Elena Kagan suggested sexual orientation is a clear subset of sex discrimination, saying that a man who loves other men cannot be treated differently by an employer than a woman who loves men” (Washington Post). Someone’s gender assigned at birth is just a part of their sexual identity which they themselves should choose. It is not up to the government to make laws about someone’s personal feelings about themselves. Sexual freedom should be encouraged by the government in the same way other freedoms are protected, and this includes legal protection.
3) I have been treated very fairly throughout my life. I am one of the oldest of my cousins and in my family so I am often in charge. I have made a point of listening to everyone no matter how young they are so that they feel included. My cousins appreciate my fairness and as a result, we get along well. My family strongly believes in treating others with fairness and I try my best to follow that belief.
4) While I believe this particular case will be ruled against the plaintiffs and have terrible consequences in our communities, I believe regardless of the outcome the case important turning point for LGBTQ rights. The ruling will spark a greater debate as to what “sex” means in a modern sense, a debate I see the LGBTQ community winning long term. In the immediate future, discrimination will be even more widespread and many people unfairly treated in the workplace. There are many people who believe that sexual identity should be protected but, at the same time, believe that the current law is just incomplete and doesn’t cover that. This case will alert those who believe the latter that changes must be made. The case will let people know that the law is incomplete and outdated, and needs to be interpreted through modern eyes.
I believe the Supreme court win be in favor of the Plaintiffs. While I think its important to have LGBTQ+ rights but the case is talking about the word ‘sex’ in Title VII which is referring to sexual orientation as well as gender which doesn't have anything to do with this case.
ReplyDeleteI agree most with Plaintiffs argument because it is legal. The Supreme court might convicted him because of political reasons but on the fact of the case I believe is innocent.
Unlike most people I cannot remember a time in my life were I was treated really unfairly. I could talk about not getting picked on a team over the coaches son but that is miniscule to the bigger issues in this world.
If the case is upheld I think no major changes will come across the country. While this issue might be important for activist but nothing to the general public will happen.
I do not believe that the plaintiff will win the case because as stated in Anja’s writing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include sexual orientation. The Trump administration also believes this so there is a minor chance that the plaintiffs could win the case.
ReplyDeleteWhich justice’s argument do you agree with the most and why?
I agree with the plaintiff’s arguments because they have to right to work where ever they desire to without being judged based on their sexual orientation. The only reason you should be judged for a job is if you haven’t had any work experience or if you haven’t had a good record, but you shouldn’t be judged for something you have no control over.
Usually, the younger sibling gets more attention and sympathy from their parents, but in my case, my older brother is always is seen as the better kid. Whenever my brother does something wrong, my parent always assumes that is was me who did it no matter how many times I tell them it isn’t. I think this happens because I am usually the one with the attitude towards my parents while my brother is nicer goody two shoes.
Is the Supreme Court uphold the law then the rights of LGBTQ+ member will be protected and these members would feel more welcome and safe in their communities, schools, and jobs. If the law does not get upheld then communities will probably gain people who don’t agree with LGBTQ+ people’s ideas but those same communities would lose any supporters and people who believe in equal rights.
Got it Blien - 4/5 credit (late).
Delete1. I agree with those who said the justices will likely not rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Although it is completely unjust and the plaintiffs should and deserve to win the case, they are using the civil rights law to back them up. The problem with this is that the law does address sex, but never addresses sexual orientation specifically, which means the law will only help support those fighting against the plaintiffs.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Justice Sotomayor the most. She explains that the court continuously allows for discrimination, in this case involving the LGBTQ community, and tends to get away with it, which is completely unjust.
3. Although I have never been treated as unfairly as the plaintiffs, I, like Yonathan, have been blamed for something that I didn't do. Once I was wrongly accused of plagiarism by a teacher just because they thought it was something I would not write. The small ways I have been treated unfairly truly anger me, so I can only imagine how I would feel to be treated as unfairly as the plaintiffs.
4. I feel that it is difficult to predict different outcomes. If the law is upheld there are always gonna be people against it, yet the law will help and support so many. It is the same if the law is not upheld. Those against the law will be happy, but those who support it will be angry and feel that the court supports the discrimination of members of the LGBTQ community.