Baldwin vs. Foxx - New Federal Lawsuit Is Potentially Bigger Than Obergefell For Gay Rights

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Oct 21, 2015 6:32 AM GMT
    New Federal Lawsuit Is Potentially Bigger Than Obergefell For Gay Rights

    Ex-FAA Worker Seeks Court Ruling Saying Anti-Gay Job Bias Prohibited Under Existing Civil Rights Laws


    DAVID BALDWIN,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as
    Secretary Of The United States Department Of
    Transportation, and MICHAEL P. HUERTA, in his
    official capacity as Administrator Federal
    Aviation Administration,
    Defendants.

    “Mr. Baldwin’s case has the ability to affect more people than the [Supreme] Court’sObergefell [marriage] case because there are more gay men and women who have jobs than same sex couples who want to get married,” Baldwin’s lawyer, Lowell Kuvin, told BuzzFeed News on Monday evening.


    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/new_federal_lawsuit_billed_as_potentially_more_important_than_obergefell_for_gay_rights
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 21, 2015 6:53 AM GMT
    I've been watching this case. It's legally a long-shot, but Kennedy COULD pull-through again for LGBTs. We shall see. The effect would essentially be that ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) would not need to be passed specifically because its protections (of LGBTs) would be, by operation of law, activated in existing Civil Rights law.

    The most serious problem is that this argument has already been addressing in the Court's jurisprudence and was negatively termed "bootstrapping." In prior cases, LGBTs argued that they were protected by then-existing Civil Rights law (the same law) because BUT FOR their SEX (male or female), they would not have suffered the prejudice. So take a gay man who is mocked for being a 'fag*ot' because he likes me. The argument goes, had be been a female, and therefore a female who liked me, he would not have been mocked since straight women are "normal" in society's eyes. It's a brilliant argument and logically sound, however, the Court rejected it as "bootstrapping" protection for LGBTs under the sex prong.

    We shall see what the Court says in light of its most recent jurisprudence stating, in essence, LGBTs are equals too and cannot be targeted. Will the Court admit it target this historically disfavored group when it labeled their attempts at protection as "bootstrapping"? I can hear Scalia screaming from the bench now icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2015 1:34 PM GMT
    Would a favorable decision formally establish Sexual Orientation as a Protected Class?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2015 5:18 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI've been watching this case. It's legally a long-shot, but Kennedy COULD pull-through again for LGBTs. We shall see. The effect would essentially be that ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) would not need to be passed specifically because its protections (of LGBTs) would be, by operation of law, activated in existing Civil Rights law.

    The most serious problem is that this argument has already been addressing in the Court's jurisprudence and was negatively termed "bootstrapping." In prior cases, LGBTs argued that they were protected by then-existing Civil Rights law (the same law) because BUT FOR their SEX (male or female), they would not have suffered the prejudice. So take a gay man who is mocked for being a 'fag*ot' because he likes me. The argument goes, had be been a female, and therefore a female who liked me, he would not have been mocked since straight women are "normal" in society's eyes. It's a brilliant argument and logically sound, however, the Court rejected it as "bootstrapping" protection for LGBTs under the sex prong.

    We shall see what the Court says in light of its most recent jurisprudence stating, in essence, LGBTs are equals too and cannot be targeted. Will the Court admit it target this historically disfavored group when it labeled their attempts at protection as "bootstrapping"? I can hear Scalia screaming from the bench now icon_cool.gif


    I agree w/ you on the law, Svn - especially in light of the Congressional intent in passing the legislation - but I also like a good yelp out of Scalia every now and then. Call me bi.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2015 10:38 PM GMT
    You had me at "sex prong" icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2015 4:52 AM GMT

    Very interesting, he filed his EEOC discrimination complaint in 2012 but just received his EEOC right to sue, under Title VII, this year July, when EEOC voted 3-2 to add sexual orientation protection

    Florida doesn't have state wide LGBT employment protections. But this guy was a federal FAA employee, so his employment policy, probably an presidential executive order, had sexual orientation employment protection already (added by pres Bill Clinton in 1995). If this guy could have used the executive order, his federal employment policy, why didn't he? Why did "the powers that be" wait 3 years later and use EEOC Title VII discrimination and not the executive order? Stronger SCOTUS case?

    This is a bit confusing, all these different, scattered, jumbled, federal v state v local v EEOC v OFCCP v At Will employment laws, how in the hell is one supposed to "know" which employment law in which state applies to your past, current or future employer? The employer, has all the advantage here, it should be mandatory for employers to tell the prospective employee what employment law applies to them, before accepting any job offer?

    Being a LGBT civil rights activist helps in understanding, a little bit more, but our country's employment laws are certainly not fair or even standardized, at all, across the board icon_confused.gif








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

    Oct 22, 2015 5:48 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI've been watching this case. It's legally a long-shot, but Kennedy COULD pull-through again for LGBTs. We shall see. The effect would essentially be that ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) would not need to be passed specifically because its protections (of LGBTs) would be, by operation of law, activated in existing Civil Rights law.

    The most serious problem is that this argument has already been addressing in the Court's jurisprudence and was negatively termed "bootstrapping." In prior cases, LGBTs argued that they were protected by then-existing Civil Rights law (the same law) because BUT FOR their SEX (male or female), they would not have suffered the prejudice. So take a gay man who is mocked for being a 'fag*ot' because he likes me. The argument goes, had be been a female, and therefore a female who liked me, he would not have been mocked since straight women are "normal" in society's eyes. It's a brilliant argument and logically sound, however, the Court rejected it as "bootstrapping" protection for LGBTs under the sex prong.

    We shall see what the Court says in light of its most recent jurisprudence stating, in essence, LGBTs are equals too and cannot be targeted. Will the Court admit it target this historically disfavored group when it labeled their attempts at protection as "bootstrapping"? I can hear Scalia screaming from the bench now icon_cool.gif

    There is this football player from Marshall University who was arrested in May this year for beating up two gay men, but since West Virginia had no hate crime based on sexual orientation, this prosecutor got around to it by charging him with hate crime based on sex, because had it been a man and a woman, that asshole wouldn't gaybash the couple.