Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact

Banning workplace discrimination against LGBTQ people is *finally* the law of the land!

Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin

Today, the United States Supreme Court released their decision in Bostock v. Clayton County declaring that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This landmark decision clarifies that LGBTQ workers are protected from discrimination in all 50 states – even those without express protections for LGBTQ workers.

While we regret that Title VII’s protection for LGBTQ people was a topic for debate in 2020, LVBH is delighted that the United States Supreme Court has expressly recognized LGBTQ workers’ right to be free from discrimination in the workplace. Today as we celebrate, we also remember the lives of Aimee Stephens and Don Zarda, two of the plaintiffs in this case, who unfortunately did not live to see this righteous outcome. This case is vital step in the direction of gender and sexual orientation equality. Moving forward, Congress must pass the Equal Rights Act in order to secure comprehensive protections for LGBTQ people. 

Writing for a 6-3 majority in the Bostock opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch reasoned that, “an employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” Therefore, Justice Gorsuch concludes, “sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Although Justice Gorsuch, a President Trump appointee, is considered one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch applied his usual textualist approach to arrive at this result. Textualism is a formalist approach to legal interpretation that focuses solely on the plain meaning of the text rather than considering exterior factors like legislative intent. Employing this approach, the Court reasoned that Title VII’s use of the word “sex” is clear and controls the analysis – discrimination against people because they do not conform to employers’ views about what their “sex” should do is sex discrimination. The Court determined that the text of the statute so clearly yields this result, that there was no need to look further into the intent of the 1964 Congress. Ultimately, Justice Gorsuch remarked, “To refuse enforcement just because…the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.”

While this textualist interpretation produces a favorable outcome for progressive values in this case, it is unlikely to yield such results in the future. Some liberal scholars warn that legitimizing Justice Gorsuch’s textualism is a conservative strategy to defend the interpretation that most often yields favorable results for conservative values. Opponents of the textualist interpretation advocate reading the Constitution as a living document that’s language adapts as time and context changes. Meanwhile, conservative thinkers are aghast at Justice Gorsuch’s progressive-leaning opinion. Many conservatives are questioning question whether Gorsuch actually applied a textual analysis in this case. The three most radically conservative justices, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas, dissented to Justice Gorsuch’s opinion.

Related Posts:

  • Black workers matter, so end forced arbitration
  • Rape Survivor’s Lawsuit Leads to New Rules for Preventing Sexual Assault for Major School District
  • Disability Rights for All of Us in the Time of Coronavirus
  • Vanguard Properties Faces Prosecution by National Labor Relations Board and Civil Lawsuit for Allegedly Firing…

More Posts

  • Darci Burrell to be featured in panel discussion of “A Woman’s Work: The NFL Cheerleader Problem”

    Darci Burrell to be featured in panel discussion of “A Woman’s Work: The NFL Cheerleader Problem”

  • Dr. Margaret Mitchell, Founder of Google Ethical AI Team, Terminated After Reporting Equity Issues of Race and Gender and Opposing the Firing of Co-Lead of Ethical AI Research Team Dr. Timnit Gebru

    Dr. Margaret Mitchell, Founder of Google Ethical AI Team, Terminated After Reporting Equity Issues of Race and Gender and Opposing the Firing of Co-Lead of Ethical AI Research Team Dr. Timnit Gebru

  • If working from home is affecting your mental health, it’s time to ask for accommodation

    If working from home is affecting your mental health, it’s time to ask for accommodation

  • “Cheering on Change” Panel Features Sharon Vinick

    “Cheering on Change” Panel Features Sharon Vinick

  • “A Woman’s Work: The NFL Cheerleader Problem” Debuts on PBS January 4th

    “A Woman’s Work: The NFL Cheerleader Problem” Debuts on PBS January 4th

  • LVBH client featured in Marin newspaper article

    LVBH client featured in Marin newspaper article

  • School principal files lawsuit for discrimination, retaliation, and defamation against San Rafael City Schools

    School principal files lawsuit for discrimination, retaliation, and defamation against San Rafael City Schools

  • Jean Hyams outlines best practices for employer workplace investigations

    Jean Hyams outlines best practices for employer workplace investigations

  • Sharon Vinick weighs in on harassment in the virtual office on WNYC’s “The Takeaway”

    Sharon Vinick weighs in on harassment in the virtual office on WNYC’s “The Takeaway”

  • LA Times calls on Leslie Levy to discuss Toobin’s indecent Zoom exposure

    LA Times calls on Leslie Levy to discuss Toobin’s indecent Zoom exposure

Tags

#metoo award class action defamation disability discrimination employee rights employment arbitration agreements employment law employment lawyer blog equal pay ethnicity harassment failure to prevent harassment family medical leave firefighter forced arbitration gender discrimination human resources layoff Lilly Ledbetter Act mandatory arbitration medical leave retaliation minimum wage misclassification national origin harassment Oakland Raiders cheerleader lawsuit personnel file public employees race discrimination racial harassment reasonable accommodation retaliation retaliation lawsuit sacramento sexual abuse sexual assault sexual harassment Super Lawyers uc regents University of California wage and hour wage theft whistleblowers women lawyers working families wrongful termination

LVBH Logo

CONTACT US

510-318-7700
info@levyvinick.com

Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Press Releases

Copyright © 2021 Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams · website: Amanda McCoy · Log in

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same.

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same. The photos on this website do not reflect actual attorney-client interactions.