Does the Civil Rights Act protect LGBT workers? The Supreme
Court is about to decide
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate
based on numerous factors, including race, religion, and sex. Lower federal courts
have disputed how sex should be defined as stated in this act for many years, with
three cases about LGBT employment discrimination even reaching the Supreme Court
in October 2019. Until now, however, the Supreme Court has avoided making
a definite ruling on whether Title VII prohibits LGBT employment discrimination.
It is expected that Justices who subscribe to originalism—such as Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh,
two of Trump's nominees—are more likely to define sex narrowly, as the writers of Title VII
did not have LGBT rights in mind when writing it. However, there are also some strong
precedents set for broad interpretation of sex, even among originalists. Consequently, it is
difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will ultimately decide. The Supreme Court's final
decision is expected to occur in mid-2020.
- How are originalism and judicial activism applicable to the interpretation of Title VII
- What do you think the Supreme Court will decide? Why?
- How is this case relevant to the Free Exercise Clause? What role has this clause played
1. Originalism is the view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intentions or original meaning of the legislators, and those who subscribe to this theory would likely interpret the provision as excluding protection for LGBTQ people since it specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity. Judicial activists, on the other hand, would argue that the provision does apply to LGBTQ people. They would advocate judicial discretion and probably argue that the Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to further equality and is in an invaluable position to alleviate the pressing needs of marginalized groups such as LGBTQ people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that because the Supreme Court is majority Republican, that this is unlikely to be a win for the LGBTQ+ community. I think that obviously at the time that the constitution was written, these people were more suppressed, and as a result, less present in society, and fro that reason, title VII didn't necessarily account for LGBTQIA+ folks. But obviously because it is 2019, it now does. I think that who how are attracted to is related to sex, not dependent on it,a dn when title vii says that it"outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin", it 100% should include sexual orientation.
ReplyDelete2. Since the Supreme Court has been leaning more conservative since Kavanaugh was appointed and confirmed, the decision for this will probably be originalist and that the Civil Rights Act does not protect the LGBTQ+ community. Many originalists and judges who believe more in judicial restraint is that sex is not that broadly defined and this case will set the precedent for a long time.
ReplyDelete3. This case is relevant to the free exercise clause since congress isn't allowed to make any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion; in this case, the free exercise of one's belief in being apart of the LGBTQ community. This clause was considered and favored, when making the ruling of Glenn v. Brumby when a transgender was fired from their job based on sex discrimination.
ReplyDelete2. Even though the Supreme Court is supposed to be unbiased and nonpartisan, the Supreme Court is now majority conservative. Since the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, the swing vote leans more to the right. I think the Supreme Court will not protect LGBTQ+ rights because the text of the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity.
ReplyDelete3. The Free Exercise Clause is the amendment that's there to protect civil freedoms and rights based on religion. For this situation, it's protecting the LGBTQ community because they have their right to believe and be their own individual self, but some might not interpret it that way.
ReplyDelete2. Due to the fact that the majority of the Supreme Court currently leans right, I think it is likely that the case will rule on a narrow interpretation of sex and allow for discrimination for LGBTQ employment. Although today there are many more progressive views than in the past, acceptance among many American citizens does not necessarily translate to progressive ideas in the Supreme Court. There are 5 conservative leaning justices on the court with Kavanaugh being the most recent addition. Conservatives tend to align themselves with originalism and the 5 justices will therefore likely rule that the original act did not mean sexual orientation when it called for no discrimination against sex. So, unless a more moderate justice from the right acts with more judicial activism and calls for a more broad interpretation, the Court will probably rule to not apply Title VII to LGBTQ employment discrimination.
ReplyDelete3. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' free exercise of religion. In this case, the clause would protect LGBTQ+ rights because it would prohibit discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community and prohibit the government from creating unfair laws. However, the court could also rule against prohibiting discrimination because some religions are against the community and because of the free exercise clause, they would have the freedom to discriminate.
ReplyDelete2. With the recent appointment of justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, the court has become a conservative majority. As a result, I believe the likely hood of the supreme court ruling in favor of expanding LGBTQ rights is slim. Additionally, the conservative justices have expressed that they will interpret the Constitution as it was written, a practice known as originalism. Therefore, they will interpret the word sex to not be the same as the word gender because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution and bill of rights.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the Supreme Court will decide that the Civil Rights Act does not protect the LGBTQ community, especially with the recent appointments who are more conservative. I believe that many Justices will subscribe to originalism and decide with the idea that the writers of the Civil Rights Act did not have the LGBTQ community in mind.
ReplyDeleteThis case is relevant to the free exercise clause because people of different gender and sexual identities should be as accepted and encouraged to practice free exercise, similar to the rights and freedoms given to religious groups. While this kind of discrimination is somewhat different because it focuses mainly on personal identity, individuals should be able to practice and be whatever allows them to be the freest version of themselves. I have some reservations regarding the verdict of the case, due to the conservative majority in the supreme court currently and the controversial nature of the case.
ReplyDelete