The supreme court is the most powerful court on the land. A majority of the rulings that the court makes are considered virtually final. Supreme court rulings cannot be appealed, and the court can overturn a law passed by Congress. In the past half-decade, the supreme court has handled several issues that touch different areas of society. Among the areas the supreme court has made rulings on include workplace discrimination, the LGBTQIA community, freedom of speech and religion, and reproduction rights. This paper includes a recent ruling made by the supreme court on LGBTQIA rights.
The LGBTQIA community recently received a win after the supreme court ruled three priority cases that favoured them. On June 15, 2020, the supreme court concluded that the civil rights Act of 1964 stood against prejudice on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender status. The decision came after the court held sessions where it reviewed some cases such as “ Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Altitude Xpress, inc v. Zarda .” In all these cases, the main issue was whether Title VII’s restriction of discrimination of a person due to sex also covered prejudice due to sexual orientation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In each of the three cases, an employer terminated their employee’s contract after they identified as transgender. In the first case, “ Bostock v. Clayton County ,” the county dismissed Gerald Bostock for enrolling and participating in a gay ball tournament. In the second case, “ Altitude Express, inc v. Zarda ¸ ” altitude express fired Donald Zarda after identifying himself as gay. In the last case, “ R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” the funeral home fired Aimee Stephens soon after choosing to be termed a female even though she had previously served as a male employee.
The supreme court grouped all three cases and decided that each of the plaintiffs was entitled to be protected under Title VII ( Cisternino & Jones, 2020) . The courts’ explanation stated that each of the plaintiffs was fired due to their sexual orientation. According to Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court declared that it was intolerable to show prejudice against an individual who had chosen to identify with a particular sexual orientation.
All of the three cases revolved around a number of factors that led to the outcome of the ruling. The first factor is when an employee dismisses their subordinates, it might be due to two reasons: the employee’s sex and the sex they are naturally attracted to or with which they identify themselves with (Hoag et al., 2020). Therefore, if a person is male but identifies as transgender or gay, then an employer may feel inclined to terminate the employee’s contract in normal circumstances. In both scenarios, the supreme court’s ruling dictated that it should be considered forbidden to discriminate against a person that identifies themselves as a member of the LGBTQA community.
The second factor featured a review of the 1964 congress action when it enacted Title VII. Soon after the title’s enactment, some people argued that the act protected gays and transgender employees. However, during the act’s making, Congress failed to establish its stand on whether Title VII prohibited same-sex discrimination. Therefore, the house probably did not think of the LGBTQIA community when it developed the act (Totenburg, 2020) . In the present ruling , the court argued that sex is defined as the biological distinctions that characterize people as man and woman. Thus any form of discrimination made as per a person’s sexual orientation is illegal.
The Supreme Court’s ruling impacted the laws and social policy within the country. On the law front, the court’s decision of stating that the 1964 congress act also protected members of the LGBTQIA community meant that from the time of the ruling henceforth, all state and federal subsidiary courts were inclined to handle any case of discrimination similarly as the supreme court (Bisom-Rapp, 2020). Additionally, after its ruling, the supreme court indirectly included the LGBTQIA members into Title VII’s cover. On the other hand, the supreme court’s ruling affected social policy as LGBTQIA members were entitled to receive federal protection in case of unfair dismissal and other adverse verdicts conducted on the grounds of their sexual position or identity a win for the gay/trans community as many states lacked legal protection for these employees. Additionally, the court’s ruling allowed any member of the LGBTQIA community to sue individuals who failed to follow Title VII.
Despite the supreme court’s ruling in favour of the LGBTQIA community, the court also identified that its decision could be overturned if proper reasons were presented. A reason worthy for the court to overturn its ruling was if an employer gave valid religious objections to hiring individuals of the LGBTQIA community. According to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, employers could deny hiring gay and trans individuals on religious grounds. Additionally, Justice Gorsuch added that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act acted as a super statute that offers a breathing area for employers to resist hiring gay and lesbian individuals. The court’s decision can also be overturned through a constitutional amendment or if the court makes a new ruling. Additionally, since the supreme court’s decisions are termed as ultimate, it is the only body that can otherwise change a prior decision.
References
Bisom-Rapp, S. (2020). The Landmark Bostock Decision: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Bias in Employment Constitute Sex Discrimination under Federal Law. Dispatch by the Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper , (3664374).
Hoag, J., Rosado-Cruz, F., & Landy, T. (2020). The Supreme Court & LGBTQIA+ Rights.
Cisternino, I., & Jones, J. J. (2020) Immediately Observable Effects (or not) of the Bostock US Supreme Court Decision on Personally Expressed LGBTQ Identity.
Totenburg, N. (2020). Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees. NPR ORG.
