In Historic Ruling, EEOC Finds Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Already Illegal

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jul 17, 2015 5:01 AM GMT
    In Historic Ruling, EEOC Finds Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Already Illegal

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds GLB workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking_in_historic_ruling_eeoc_finds_sexual_orientation_discrimination_is_already_illegal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2015 12:51 PM GMT
    This will enrage Republicans for sure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2015 2:09 PM GMT
    a bump:
    I would like to ask those with a law background the functionality of this opinion. Is this the basis for the next round of LGBT rights?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2015 3:34 PM GMT
    Not all GOPers are "enraged," Artless, but you never were much one for accuracy. This is all fine and well, but the rationale of the ruling leaves A LOT to be desired. In 1964, G&L employment rights, let alone transgendered ones, were not even on the radar of this legislation; so much for the legislative intent re: sexual discrimination. Not that it's not been tried before; in addition to the several circuit rulings finding that sex discrimination did not include sexual orientation discrimination, I have a very clear recollection of arguing at a gay lawyers conference in the '80s that we should argue it does: I was pooh-pooed by several of the grand poobahs present. So, I'm glad to see my argument finally adopted some 30 years after it was made, but I don't think SCOTUS is going to let this one stand, which makes it all the more imperative to get ENDA passed and signed.

    Here's a link to a less "passionate" discussion of the ruling, and the opinion itself:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/16/anti-gay-discrimination-is-sex-discrimination-says-the-eeoc/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2015 3:42 PM GMT
    Oh those gays. First they changed the definition of marriage. Now they want to change the definition of sex.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2929

    Jul 17, 2015 5:35 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThis will enrage Republicans for sure.


    The outrage machine never sleeps!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2015 7:36 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    Art_Deco saidThis will enrage Republicans for sure.

    The outrage machine never sleeps!

    Just tune in Fox, the dedicated Republican propaganda outlet.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jul 17, 2015 8:46 PM GMT
    Certainly we are opposed to unfair discrimination, but the route used must be considered. In this particular case, the EEOC ruling will be beneficial and probably have no down sides. However, if laws are routinely interpreted in ways that were certainly not intended when they were enacted, serious problems could result.

    Not being an attorney, I can't say much more about this. Perhaps someone with extensive legal knowledge can cite problems which could result from routinely interpreting laws in ways that were not intended when they were enacted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2015 9:21 PM GMT
    FRE0 saidCertainly we are opposed to unfair discrimination, but the route used must be considered. In this particular case, the EEOC ruling will be beneficial and probably have no down sides. However, if laws are routinely interpreted in ways that were certainly not intended when they were enacted, serious problems could result.

    Not being an attorney, I can't say much more about this. Perhaps someone with extensive legal knowledge can cite problems which could result from routinely interpreting laws in ways that were not intended when they were enacted.


    The most glaring problem today is interpreting the XIV Amdt. to allow for "birthright citizenship," for kids born in the states to citizens not legally here. Legislative history plays a big role in interpreting laws that are ambiguous or attempted to be used in ways not intended.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2015 11:05 PM GMT
    JuanPablomv89 said
    Art_Deco said
    tazzari said
    Art_Deco saidThis will enrage Republicans for sure.

    The outrage machine never sleeps!

    Just tune in Fox, the dedicated Republican propaganda outlet.

    When you were living a fake heterosexual life as a republican man with your wife and two sons did you like to watch Fox?

    The "GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT STARTED IN EARLY 70'S NOT IN 1995" when fat ass Hillary Clinton husband was the US president and didn't do anything for gay rights because back in those days that pig believed that marriage is between a man and a woman so why now she believes in gay marriage? MORE VOTES

    Please explain the interest of a Mexican in any of this? This thread is about a US Federal agency making an EEOC ruling.

    Perhaps you'd like to start a thread about the incompetence & corruption of your own Mexican government in allowing "El Chapo" to escape via a mile-long tunnel. Maybe that's Hillary's fault, too. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    Jul 18, 2015 2:06 AM GMT
    tazzari said
    Art_Deco saidThis will enrage Republicans for sure.


    The outrage machine never sleeps!
    Neither do you extremist liberal hens. Always squawking and making a lot of noise over nothing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2015 2:45 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThis will enrage Republicans for sure.


    How do you know this? Do you know any?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2015 3:02 AM GMT
    desertmuscl said
    Art_Deco saidThis will enrage Republicans for sure.


    How do you know this? Do you know any?



    Quoted from the article:
    "Today's ruling is historic, and sets an important precedent that no doubt will lead to a Supreme Court case in the future."

    Just sayin'. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2015 3:10 AM GMT

    Well, im probably in line for SCOTUS precedent, except EEOC forgot to mention the one HUGE thing blocking many paths, and that is those pesky statute of limitations that are quite unfair, especially when statute times vary by type of employee and state. Talk about unequal, if I was covered under Title VII 3 years ago, does that mean I can sue now after this ruling? icon_idea.gif

    And why did EEOC, "all of a sudden" decide this? Duh?







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2015 3:51 AM GMT



    For now, the EEOC's decision applies only to federal employees' claims. But the EEOC represents private employees, as well, and helps employers and employees settle discrimination claims without a lawsuit. Last year, the EEOC resolved nearly half its cases through this process. And under the new guidelines, all sexual orientation discrimination will be considered illegal, empowering gay private employees to lodge discrimination complaints. Until the Supreme Court weighs in, lower courts may choose to accept or reject the EEOC's reading of Title VII. But the commission's rulings are respected by the judiciary, and could tip more courts to rule that sexual orientation discrimination is, indeed, already forbidden in the United States.


    Update, July 17: After the decision was released, an EEOC spokesperson announced that it was decided by a 3-2 vote. It was not unanimous—though the decision itself notes no objections.
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jul 19, 2015 6:31 AM GMT
    Thank Scalia for the Revolutionary EEOC Workplace Discrimination Decision

    "it can be traced back to a unanimous 1997 Supreme Court opinion written by none other than Justice Antonin Scalia."


    "That case, Oncale v. Sundowner dealt with Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex.”

    Scalia explained:

    "Statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed."

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/17/scalia_and_the_eeoc_how_oncale_made_sexual_orientation_discrimination_illegal.html