Current Events > Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Transgender Workers

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-supreme-court-transgender-workers-233331144.html

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to set a legal precedent that would make it OK for an employer to fire a person for being transgender.

In a brief filed Friday, the Justice Department argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only protects workers from discrimination based on their biological sex.

Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status, the Justice Department wrote. It simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individuals gender identity or a disconnect between an individuals gender identity and the individuals sex.

The Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to hear three cases that look at whether Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prohibits workplace discrimination, applies to LGBTQ workers.

Fridays brief pertains to one of the lawsuits, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which a transgender woman was fired after she transitioned.

Aimee Stephens had reportedly presented as a man when she began working at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan in 2007. The companys owner, Thomas Rost, fired her six years later, when she announced her plans to transition.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that Stephens firing was discriminatory.

The unrefuted facts show that the Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employers stereotypical conception of her sex, the court wrote in a 49-page decision.

Discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII, the court said. It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employees status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employees sex.

But the Justice Department argued on Friday that the ordinary public meaning of sex was biological sex when the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964.

It did not encompass transgender status, which Stephens and the Sixth Circuit describe as a disconnect between an individuals biological sex and gender identity, DOJ lawyers wrote. In the particular context of Title VII legislation originally designed to eliminate employment discrimination against racial and other minorities it was especially clear that the prohibition on discrimination because of sex referred to unequal treatment of men and women in the workplace.

---

Chase Strangio, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Stephens in her suit, argued that the case has implications beyond the trans community.

People dont realize that the stakes are extending not just the trans and LGB communities, but every person who departs from sex stereotypes: Women who want to wear pants in the workplace, men who want more childbearing responsibilities. Those protections are also in peril with the arguments advanced by the Trump administration, presented at the Supreme Court, Strangio told HuffPost.

He added: There isnt a coherent way to carve out LGBT people without changing the standard that exists under the law.

The Supreme Court is also looking at two cases of employees fired over their sexual orientation: In Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Long Island skydiving instructor Don Zarda was fired after he told a client he was gay. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that Zardas firing was discriminatory. But the 11th Circuit, in a similar case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, ruled that precedent suggested Title VII did not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Department of Justice is expected to file briefs on both cases next week.

I'm starting to think that he might not be an ally
---

PleaseClap posted...

I'm starting to think that he might not be an ally

But he held up a flag!

The fact you think his repeated and constant efforts to place anti LGBTQ+ laws and judges into place, the constant dismall of their issues and degrading talk around them means he might not support them is frankly ludicrous in the wake of holding a flag.
---

This Trump guy sucks major ass
---

Of course SCOTUS will rubber stamp this.

At least 4 of those justices, especially fucking kavanaugh would declare the purge legal if they could

It starts with this, then it goes with minorities and if they're especially feeling dickish it can be ugly women or married women.
---

Wow. I mean wow.
---

Antifar posted...

This Trump guy sucks major ass

---

Really looking forward to what future textbooks have to say about this admin

always looking for loopholes, huh

---

"Trump is good actually"

Blair White: No you see this is reasonable because dhdhfhcoyeanncaruknfsdhbgdsyhcdsth

---

Literally told people from the beginning that this was Trump's goal, but most of the bigots who said he wasn't are either banned or three alt accounts in because their main accounts from the election were banned.

Of course, this is one of those times where being right isn't a good thing beyond however much I was able to make preparations for this bigotry attempt on a national scale.
---

@Spooking
@REMercsChamp
@glitteringfairy
@Caution998
@Caution999

comments? concerns?
---

E32005 posted...

@Spooking
@REMercsChamp
@glitteringfairy
@Caution998
@Caution999

comments? concerns?

Missed DE and RealDill

This will set a scary precedent.
---

AlphaCuck posted...

"Trump is good actually"

Nope.
---

With this and Epstein it's like Trump wants America to be Russia
---

E32005 posted...

Spooking
REMercsChamp
glitteringfairy
Caution998
Caution999

comments? concerns?

Why

Why do you tag people you know will just troll?


---

Theres absolutely no excuse or justification for this. Anyone whod actually fire someone or want to fire someone for being transgender really needs to get their priorities in order and stop being a fucking scumbag.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

This will set a scary precedent.

If it passes, even if it does, it will be appealed, overturned over and over again.
---

008Zulu posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

This will set a scary precedent.

If it passes, even if it does, it will be appealed, overturned over and over again.

No court on the planet can overturn the Supreme Court. Their word is law.
---

No good person can support this.

He held that flag so hard though. He used both hands. I dont get it

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

E32005 posted...

Spooking
REMercsChamp
glitteringfairy
Caution998
Caution999

comments? concerns?

Why

Why do you tag people you know will just troll?

then they finally admit it
---

HylianFox posted...

always looking for loopholes, huh

That's kind of what I took out of it. They looked for something they could use and that's obviously something so they ran with it.
---

Can they simply ask them to do this? Is it likely they will comply? The ruling in favor of gerrymandering has destroyed my faith in the court, but this seems like a different animal.

https://images.app.goo.gl/J6HhLEsEErvVAqGc8
---

Well he already lost the support of the one Transwoman that was on his side.
---

apocalyptic_4 posted...

https://images.app.goo.gl/J6HhLEsEErvVAqGc8

look how fake he looks right there

"ha, i scammed all of you!"

what a horrible president
---

It would be nice if this nitpicking of the law was meant to lead us to a law where we can't fire someone for non-business-related reasons.

But of course, that's not why this administration is doing this.

Maze_ posted...

With this and Epstein it's like Trump wants America to be Russia

A servant must follow in his master's footsteps.
---

yowie wowie
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

It would be nice if this nitpicking of the law was meant to lead us to a law where we can't fire someone for non-business-related reasons.

But of course, that's not why this administration is doing this.

Straight up I wanted to read the brief myself before posting it in my friends discord. And I missed a few key details in my first reading that had me agreeing with it.

I had read it at first as you could nitpick this to not cover trans people so we want the Supreme Court to look into this. That doesnt seem bad, but its also not at all inline with the current administration so I was really confused

And then I realized it was you could nitpick this to not cover trans people and we want the Supreme Court to do this to.

Man itd be nice to have that first interpretation be reality
---

You know who else demonizes LGBT people? Russia. The Epstein case sounded pretty Russian too. We are inching closer and closer to that fucking country and it is making me sick.
---

E32005 posted...

@Spooking
@REMercsChamp
@glitteringfairy
@Caution998
@Caution999

comments? concerns?

No comments or concerns at this time

---

Sayoria posted...

You know who else demonizes LGBT people? Russia. The Epstein case sounded pretty Russian too. We are inching closer and closer to that fucking country and it is making me sick.

You know who locks up political opponents and journalists? Russia.

Now keep in mind lock her up, uranium 1, investigate biden and his call to change laws so he can sue the press for libel...

As an owner i support this. It would make my customer's very uncomfortable.

(If it offends you it is what it is) moving is a tough business.
---

The_True_King posted...

As an owner i support this. It would make my customer's very uncomfortable.

(If it offends you it is what it is) moving is a tough business.

What?

EliteC posted...

The_True_King posted...

As an owner i support this. It would make my customer's very uncomfortable.

(If it offends you it is what it is) moving is a tough business.

What?

Don't take the bait.
---

Funkydog posted...

EliteC posted...

The_True_King posted...

As an owner i support this. It would make my customer's very uncomfortable.

(If it offends you it is what it is) moving is a tough business.

What?

Don't take the bait.

Its not even bait, he just threw the hook with no worm in it!

EliteC posted...

Funkydog posted...

EliteC posted...

The_True_King posted...

As an owner i support this. It would make my customer's very uncomfortable.

(If it offends you it is what it is) moving is a tough business.

What?

Don't take the bait.

Its not even bait, he just threw the hook with no worm in it!

Pretty nonsensical rambling, yes.
---

Funkydog posted...

EliteC posted...

Funkydog posted...

EliteC posted...

The_True_King posted...

As an owner i support this. It would make my customer's very uncomfortable.

(If it offends you it is what it is) moving is a tough business.

What?

Don't take the bait.

Its not even bait, he just threw the hook with no worm in it!

Pretty nonsensical rambling, yes.

Not bait I'm saying my customers wouldn't want a trans individual working in their home. Bible state Florida. I have nothing against trans people but this would protect me.
---

Why? Unless it's a very specific subset of job in which sex matters, sports being the only one I can think of, then it doesn't matter whatsoever.

I've had women worker's who worked there ass off and client's aren't happy because they were women. In the moving business as fucked up as it is hiring someone trans would not go over well in my state. We get the very religious individuals.
---

The_True_King posted...

Funkydog posted...

EliteC posted...

Funkydog posted...

EliteC posted...

The_True_King posted...

As an owner i support this. It would make my customer's very uncomfortable.

(If it offends you it is what it is) moving is a tough business.

What?

Don't take the bait.

Its not even bait, he just threw the hook with no worm in it!

Pretty nonsensical rambling, yes.

Not bait I'm saying my customers wouldn't want a trans individual working in their home. Bible state Florida. I have nothing against trans people but this would protect me.

Down here in the great state of Alabama/Georgia/Iowa, my client dont take kindly to colored folk, so I had to put that whites only sign there, said bubba John Smith, while showing us the framed picture of him shaking trumps hand/Stephen Millers hand/Tom Cottons hand

Do you realize how STUPID your argument sounds man?

Are you also for whites only signs in the south?

nemu posted...

Why? Unless it's a very specific subset of job in which sex matters, sports being the only one I can think of, then it doesn't matter whatsoever.

acting is the only other one i can think of

and brothel workers
---

The_True_King posted...

I've had women worker's who worked there ass off and client's aren't happy because they were women. In the moving business as fucked up as it is hiring someone trans would not go over well in my state. We get the very religious individuals.

Down here in the great state of Utah, we get lots of Mormon folks. They even wear their magic underwear. They dont like black folks, so I had to ban them from my restaurant/shop/hospital/GOP headquarters.

Before you say thats far fetched: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

You people are wishing for stuff that would make NINA look tame

EliteC posted...

The_True_King posted...

I've had women worker's who worked there ass off and client's aren't happy because they were women. In the moving business as fucked up as it is hiring someone trans would not go over well in my state. We get the very religious individuals.

Down here in the great state of Utah, we get lots of Mormon folks. They even wear their magic underwear. They dont like black folks, so I had to ban them from my restaurant/shop/hospital/GOP headquarters.

Before you say thats far fetched: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

You people are wishing for stuff that would make NINA look tame

A little quote from that article :

One of the justifications that the LDS Church used for the discriminatory policy was that black individual's pre-existence spirits were not as virtuous as white pre-existence spirits. Brigham Young rejected the idea that Africans were cursed because they had been less valiant in a premortal life, but Orson Pratt supported it.[51] Formally, this justification appeared as early as 1908 in a Liahona magazine article.[10]:56 Joseph Fielding Smith supported the idea in his 1931 book The Way to Perfection, stating that the priesthood restriction on black was a "punishment" for actions in the pre-existence

Until the public becomes accepting to trans people business's will do what needs to be done. I know it upsets you but this is the real world. Not going to risk financial ruin over a few individuals. When you own a company hire whoever you want but given the environment and public perception I'd pass for now. When it settles down a few year's from now it will be a different case.
---