Workplace Discrimination based on Seual Orientation and Gender Identity Must End

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by TheProgressivePatriot, Mar 21, 2018.

  1. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    10,897
    Thanks Received:
    1,474
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +5,972
    While many states have laws against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many others do not. For employers to be able to fire someone for posting his or her wedding photos on social media is a travesty. In that Congress is paralyses, and the fact that it will likely take decades longer for some states to come around and offer protections, it is imperative that the federal courts step in now.

    Here is the current situation

    https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/pdf/state_nondiscrimination.pdf

    Fortunately, issue is being brought to the forefront by a number of groups , spearheaded by upload_2018-3-21_12-51-30.png

    47 Businesses, States, EEOC and Civil Rights Groups Urge Federal Court to End Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination


    Links to the various cases appear throughout the article.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  2. Tijn Von Ingersleben
    Offline

    Tijn Von Ingersleben Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,616
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    150
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    No one cares about your penis placement. Keep it to yourself and out of the workplace.
     
    • Winner x 3
    • Thank You! x 1
    • Agree x 1
    • Funny x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! x 1
  3. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    10,897
    Thanks Received:
    1,474
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +5,972
    Thank you for that well thought out, informative and cogent response to an important civil rights issue. I will nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize at one. You are a valuable contributor to the USMB as well
     
  4. The Professor
    Offline

    The Professor Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    15,466
    Thanks Received:
    22,669
    Trophy Points:
    2,405
    Ratings:
    +26,292
    Let's talk about Federal law.

    Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on the issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

    “Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

    Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

    (Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

    It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further, the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    “In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

    EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

    Conclusion: If State law does no afford you a proper remedy, federal laws should. I suggest you see an attorney.

    NOTE: I wrote the above article well over a year ago and there may have been some new developments since that time. I'm sure that any changes will show greater concerns for the protections of lesbians and gays.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. DarkFury
    Offline

    DarkFury BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2015
    Messages:
    27,260
    Thanks Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    940
    Location:
    Sun, Sand And Palm Trees
    Ratings:
    +39,826
    If the OP wants to stop work place violence or sexual assault I suggest he stop doing it.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Tijn Von Ingersleben
    Offline

    Tijn Von Ingersleben Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,616
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    150
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    You know...you might be a flaming lib queen, but thank you for those kind words.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  7. harmonica
    Offline

    harmonica Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    11,734
    Thanks Received:
    1,243
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,282
    we had gays at our work ....no one ever gave them trouble/etc
    you are blowing this out of proportion just like the blacks do with race
    ''various cases''....people get fired/laid/off screwed over all the time by employers
    please prove this deviant discrimination is a major, chronic problem
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. harmonica
    Offline

    harmonica Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    11,734
    Thanks Received:
    1,243
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,282
    high rates?? prove this
    if you can do a job well, they usually hire you and keep you --no matter what gayness you are
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. DGS49
    Online

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,481
    Thanks Received:
    1,375
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    The Price Waterhouse case cited above is an outlier, and will eventually be overturned, when the USSC decides to deal with it (or one raising the same issue). Abnormal sexual orientation (or affectation) is NOT a protected class under Federal law.

    Interestingly, the "arguments" that discrimination based on sexual or perceived sexual irregularity is "bad for business" are irrelevant. What might be bad for business is having employees who look and/or act like they are performers in a freak show, but that's for each employer to decide.

    The reason why Congress has not tackled this thorny issue is that sexual orientation is not legally definable, and a law purporting to prohibit such discrimination would be little more than a tool for lawyers and advocacy organizations to bring a tsunami of groundless, costly, pointless lawsuits against people and organizations that they simply don't like.

    The unfortunate and confounding fact is that NO EMPLOYER CARES ABOUT YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Not even the United States Army. Furthermore, unless YOU DO SOMETHING OVERT to call your employer's attention to your sexual orientation, it will not know. After 50-odd years of employment in my own case, no employer ever asked me who I slept with or desired to sleep with. They simply didn't care.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    10,897
    Thanks Received:
    1,474
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +5,972
    Thank you. However, it appears that the current Justice Department is at odds with the EEOC

    Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gays

    The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

    The department’s move to insert itself into a federal case in New York was an unusual example of top officials in Washington intervening in court in what is an important but essentially private dispute between a worker and his boss over gay rights issues.

    “The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the Justice Department said in a friend-of-the-court brief, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page