CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "The New York Times" to "The New York Times"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Text replacement - "The New York Times" to "The New York Times") |
||
| Line 517: | Line 517: | ||
In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of [[gender identity]] or [[transgender]] status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.<ref>[http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt ''Macy v. Holder''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141231094752/http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt |date=December 31, 2014 }}, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012)</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Quinones|first=Sam|author-link=Sam Quinones|title=EEOC rules job protections also apply to transgender people|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2012-apr-25-la-me-transgender-20120425-story.html|access-date=November 4, 2014|date=April 25, 2012|agency=Los Angeles Times|archive-date=December 20, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220041529/http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/25/local/la-me-transgender-20120425|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.<ref>{{cite news|last=Rosenberg|first=Mica|title=U.S. government lawsuits target transgender discrimination in workplace|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-employment-transexual-idUSKCN0HO29Z20140929|access-date=November 4, 2014|date=September 9, 2014|work=Reuters|archive-date=March 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307202324/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-employment-transexual-idUSKCN0HO29Z20140929|url-status=live}}</ref> {{as of|2014|November|}}, Commissioner [[Chai Feldblum]] is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.<ref>{{cite web|title=What You Should Know about EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers|url=http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm|publisher=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=November 8, 2014|archive-date=November 8, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108192133/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite tweet|user=chaifeldblum|first=Chai|last=Feldblum|author-link=Chai Feldblum|number=530426616821088256|date=November 6, 2014|title=ICYMI – EEOC helping LGBT people get protection from discrimination under sex discrimination laws.}}</ref>{{update inline|date=February 2021}} | In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of [[gender identity]] or [[transgender]] status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.<ref>[http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt ''Macy v. Holder''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141231094752/http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt |date=December 31, 2014 }}, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012)</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Quinones|first=Sam|author-link=Sam Quinones|title=EEOC rules job protections also apply to transgender people|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2012-apr-25-la-me-transgender-20120425-story.html|access-date=November 4, 2014|date=April 25, 2012|agency=Los Angeles Times|archive-date=December 20, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220041529/http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/25/local/la-me-transgender-20120425|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.<ref>{{cite news|last=Rosenberg|first=Mica|title=U.S. government lawsuits target transgender discrimination in workplace|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-employment-transexual-idUSKCN0HO29Z20140929|access-date=November 4, 2014|date=September 9, 2014|work=Reuters|archive-date=March 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307202324/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-employment-transexual-idUSKCN0HO29Z20140929|url-status=live}}</ref> {{as of|2014|November|}}, Commissioner [[Chai Feldblum]] is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.<ref>{{cite web|title=What You Should Know about EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers|url=http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm|publisher=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=November 8, 2014|archive-date=November 8, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108192133/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite tweet|user=chaifeldblum|first=Chai|last=Feldblum|author-link=Chai Feldblum|number=530426616821088256|date=November 6, 2014|title=ICYMI – EEOC helping LGBT people get protection from discrimination under sex discrimination laws.}}</ref>{{update inline|date=February 2021}} | ||
On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]], the [[United States Department of Justice]] (DOJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DOJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-announces-reversal-on-litigating-transgen |title=Justice Department Will Now Support Transgender Discrimination Claims In Litigation |author=Geidner, Chris |date=December 18, 2014 |newspaper=[[BuzzFeed News]] |access-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005202759/https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-announces-reversal-on-litigating-transgen |url-status=live }}</ref> The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII.<ref name="NYTFEUER">{{cite news | title = Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html | work = | On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]], the [[United States Department of Justice]] (DOJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DOJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-announces-reversal-on-litigating-transgen |title=Justice Department Will Now Support Transgender Discrimination Claims In Litigation |author=Geidner, Chris |date=December 18, 2014 |newspaper=[[BuzzFeed News]] |access-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005202759/https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-announces-reversal-on-litigating-transgen |url-status=live }}</ref> The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII.<ref name="NYTFEUER">{{cite news | title = Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html | work = The New York Times | date = July 27, 2017 | access-date = March 28, 2018 | archive-date = April 29, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190429134558/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html | url-status = live }}</ref> | ||
In October 2017, Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]] withdrew the Holder memorandum.<ref name=BF-171005>{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/jeff-sessions-just-reversed-a-policy-that-protects |title=Jeff Sessions Just Reversed A Policy That Protects Transgender Workers From Discrimination |author=Holden, Dominic |author-link=Dominic Holden |date=October 5, 2017 |newspaper=[[BuzzFeed News]] |access-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005155031/https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/jeff-sessions-just-reversed-a-policy-that-protects |url-status=live }}</ref> According to a copy of Sessions' directive reviewed by ''BuzzFeed News'', he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Goico|first1=Allison L.|last2=Geller|first2=Hayley|title=US Attorney General Jefferson Sessions Issues New Guidance On Transgender Employees|url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-attorney-general-jefferson-sessions-issues-new-guidance-transgender-employees|access-date=October 15, 2017|work=The [[National Law Review]]|publisher=Dinsmore & Shohl LLP|date=October 6, 2017|archive-date=October 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016070541/https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-attorney-general-jefferson-sessions-issues-new-guidance-transgender-employees|url-status=live}}</ref> Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DOJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." [[Sharon McGowan]], a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DOJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is{{snd}}it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court."<ref name=BF-171005 /> But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DOJ in certain cases.<ref name="NYTFEUER"/> | In October 2017, Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]] withdrew the Holder memorandum.<ref name=BF-171005>{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/jeff-sessions-just-reversed-a-policy-that-protects |title=Jeff Sessions Just Reversed A Policy That Protects Transgender Workers From Discrimination |author=Holden, Dominic |author-link=Dominic Holden |date=October 5, 2017 |newspaper=[[BuzzFeed News]] |access-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-date=October 5, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005155031/https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/jeff-sessions-just-reversed-a-policy-that-protects |url-status=live }}</ref> According to a copy of Sessions' directive reviewed by ''BuzzFeed News'', he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Goico|first1=Allison L.|last2=Geller|first2=Hayley|title=US Attorney General Jefferson Sessions Issues New Guidance On Transgender Employees|url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-attorney-general-jefferson-sessions-issues-new-guidance-transgender-employees|access-date=October 15, 2017|work=The [[National Law Review]]|publisher=Dinsmore & Shohl LLP|date=October 6, 2017|archive-date=October 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016070541/https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-attorney-general-jefferson-sessions-issues-new-guidance-transgender-employees|url-status=live}}</ref> Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DOJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." [[Sharon McGowan]], a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DOJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is{{snd}}it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court."<ref name=BF-171005 /> But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DOJ in certain cases.<ref name="NYTFEUER"/> | ||
| Line 647: | Line 647: | ||
{{Main|Bostock v. Clayton County|Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda}} | {{Main|Bostock v. Clayton County|Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda}} | ||
On June 15, 2020, in ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Title VII protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex apply to discrimination against [[LGBT]] individuals.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/|access-date=June 16, 2020|website=Justia Law|language=en|archive-date=June 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615223128/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/|url-status=live}}</ref> In the opinion, Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] wrote that a business that discriminates against homosexual or transgender individuals is discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Thus discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees is a form of sex discrimination, which is forbidden under Title VII.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html|title=Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules|first=Adam|last=Liptak|author-link=Pete Williams (journalist)|newspaper= | On June 15, 2020, in ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Title VII protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex apply to discrimination against [[LGBT]] individuals.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/|access-date=June 16, 2020|website=Justia Law|language=en|archive-date=June 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615223128/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/|url-status=live}}</ref> In the opinion, Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] wrote that a business that discriminates against homosexual or transgender individuals is discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Thus discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees is a form of sex discrimination, which is forbidden under Title VII.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html|title=Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules|first=Adam|last=Liptak|author-link=Pete Williams (journalist)|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 15, 2020|access-date=June 15, 2020|archive-date=June 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617162445/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
''Bostock'' was consolidated with ''Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda''.<ref name="bostock ruling"/> Before the Supreme Court's intervention, there was a split in the circuit courts, including these two cases<ref name="title7lgbtq">{{cite news |last1=Chappell |first1=Bill |title=Supreme Court Will Hear Cases On LGBTQ Discrimination Protections For Employees |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/04/22/716010002/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-lgbtq-discrimination-protections-for-employees |access-date=April 23, 2019 |work=[[NPR]] |date=April 22, 2019 |archive-date=April 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190423011833/https://www.npr.org/2019/04/22/716010002/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-lgbtq-discrimination-protections-for-employees |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/supreme-court-clashes-over-meaning-of-sex-in-lgbt-discrimination-cases.html | title = Supreme Court clashes over meaning of 'sex' in LGBT discrimination cases | first = Tucker | last = Higgens | date = October 8, 2019 | access-date = October 8, 2019 | publisher = [[CNBC]] | archive-date = October 8, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191008170007/https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/supreme-court-clashes-over-meaning-of-sex-in-lgbt-discrimination-cases.html | url-status = live }}</ref> as well as ''Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital'' in the Eleventh Circuit.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-high-court-turns-away-dispute-over-gay-worker-protections-idUSKBN1E51OT |title=U.S. high court turns away dispute over gay worker protections |author=Chung, Andrew |date=December 11, 2017 |work=Reuters |agency=Reuters |access-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211165329/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-high-court-turns-away-dispute-over-gay-worker-protections-idUSKBN1E51OT |url-status=live }}</ref> | ''Bostock'' was consolidated with ''Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda''.<ref name="bostock ruling"/> Before the Supreme Court's intervention, there was a split in the circuit courts, including these two cases<ref name="title7lgbtq">{{cite news |last1=Chappell |first1=Bill |title=Supreme Court Will Hear Cases On LGBTQ Discrimination Protections For Employees |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/04/22/716010002/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-lgbtq-discrimination-protections-for-employees |access-date=April 23, 2019 |work=[[NPR]] |date=April 22, 2019 |archive-date=April 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190423011833/https://www.npr.org/2019/04/22/716010002/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-lgbtq-discrimination-protections-for-employees |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/supreme-court-clashes-over-meaning-of-sex-in-lgbt-discrimination-cases.html | title = Supreme Court clashes over meaning of 'sex' in LGBT discrimination cases | first = Tucker | last = Higgens | date = October 8, 2019 | access-date = October 8, 2019 | publisher = [[CNBC]] | archive-date = October 8, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191008170007/https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/supreme-court-clashes-over-meaning-of-sex-in-lgbt-discrimination-cases.html | url-status = live }}</ref> as well as ''Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital'' in the Eleventh Circuit.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-high-court-turns-away-dispute-over-gay-worker-protections-idUSKBN1E51OT |title=U.S. high court turns away dispute over gay worker protections |author=Chung, Andrew |date=December 11, 2017 |work=Reuters |agency=Reuters |access-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211165329/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-high-court-turns-away-dispute-over-gay-worker-protections-idUSKBN1E51OT |url-status=live }}</ref> | ||