DOJ: Businesses Can Discriminate Against Transgender Workers

[itsApril]

DOJ: Businesses Can Discriminate Against Transgender Workers

by Chris Opfer
BloombergLaw
Posted Oct. 24, 2018, 1:02 PM
Updated Oct. 24, 2018, 1:41 PM

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/justice-department-says-transgender-discrimination-is-lawful

The Justice Department today told the U.S. Supreme Court that businesses can discriminate against workers based on their gender identity without violating federal law.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the high court that a civil rights law banning sex discrimination on the job doesn't cover transgender bias. That approach already has created a rift within the Trump administration, contradicting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's view of the law it's tasked with enforcing.

A Michigan funeral home wants the high court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision finding that the company violated federal workplace discrimination law when it fired Aimee Stephens, a transgender worker. The EEOC successfully sued on behalf of Stephens in that case, but the Justice Department has the sole authority to represent the government before the Supreme Court. The DOJ told the high court that the Sixth Circuit got the case wrong.

"The court of appeals misread the statute and this Court's decisions in concluding that Title VII encompasses discrimination on the basis of gender identity," Francisco said in a brief filed with the court.

[AnonyMs]

Just to add to this

Trump administration wants to remove 'gender' from UN human rights documents
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/24/trump-administration-gender-transgender-united-nations

The US mission to the United Nations is seeking to eliminate the word "gender" from UN human rights documents, most often replacing it with "woman", apparently as part of the Trump administration's campaign to define transgender people out of existence.

[Mariah]

Considering this dead horse has been beaten enough. Thread Locked.

[itsApril]

. . . this dead horse has been beaten enough . . .

Well no actually.  This is a DIFFERENT horse.  The Administration now argues before the US Supreme Court that trans folks do not deserve protection from discrimination ON THE JOB.

This is a new and different attack on our rights, separate from the Health and Human Services attack.

[Danni98]

We can't exist as humans, we cant work, whats next? is he going to send the gestapo after us?

[GingerVicki]

I am sure that it will get worse. This has just started.

[itsApril]

some legal commentary on the DOJ anti-trans brief:

Trump administration just laid out its legal argument against trans rights — it's hot garbage

ThinkProgress.org
IAN MILLHISER
OCT 25, 2018, 2:38 PM

"Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that a Trump administration memo seeks to define the word "sex" as "either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with." On Wednesday, the administration filed a brief in the Supreme Court laying out its legal rationale for its conclusion.

"The brief is, to put it mildly, a dumpster fire. It ignores the plain text of the law, attempts to dismiss two seminal Supreme Court decisions, and completely disregards the facts of one of those cases. Should the Trump administration's effort to redefine "sex" succeed, moreover, it would have profound implications for American civil rights laws.

"Numerous federal laws prohibit discrimination "because of . . . sex," or "on the basis of sex," or otherwise provide that "sex" discrimination is not allowed. The Trump administration's definition would foreclose civil rights suits for many transgender victims of discrimination by employers, schools, or even health providers. Moreover, it would strip them of rights they already enjoy under the language used by existing laws.

"Just as significantly, the Trump administration's argument raises serious questions about whether the words of the law matter so long as the Supreme Court is dominated by conservative activists. . . ."