News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: LostInTime on August 04, 2006, 10:23:56 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Civil rights law doesn't include gays, court says
Post by: LostInTime on August 04, 2006, 10:23:56 AM
Post by: LostInTime on August 04, 2006, 10:23:56 AM
Article (http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories06/august/0804061.htm)
The same court has ruled that it does protect transgender people, though
Cincinnati--The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals says that if the 1964 Civil Rights Act could protect a gay cop from employment discrimination, then all gays and lesbians would have to be protected--and that just can't be.
The 2-1 decision was rendered July 19 in the case involving police officer Chris Vickers and his former employer, the Fairfield Medical Center of Lancaster, Ohio, along with his supervisor, two co-workers and a co-worker's spouse.
Had Vickers prevailed, it would have been the first time the federal civil rights law would have protected a gay person from discrimination on the basis of sex-stereotyping.
The legal path is the same one taken in the landmark Smith v. Salem suit two years earlier by the same court.
The same court has ruled that it does protect transgender people, though
Cincinnati--The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals says that if the 1964 Civil Rights Act could protect a gay cop from employment discrimination, then all gays and lesbians would have to be protected--and that just can't be.
The 2-1 decision was rendered July 19 in the case involving police officer Chris Vickers and his former employer, the Fairfield Medical Center of Lancaster, Ohio, along with his supervisor, two co-workers and a co-worker's spouse.
Had Vickers prevailed, it would have been the first time the federal civil rights law would have protected a gay person from discrimination on the basis of sex-stereotyping.
The legal path is the same one taken in the landmark Smith v. Salem suit two years earlier by the same court.
Title: Re: Civil rights law doesn't include gays, court says
Post by: Chaunte on August 04, 2006, 08:57:03 PM
Post by: Chaunte on August 04, 2006, 08:57:03 PM
This could easily go back to the Supreme Court.
Chaunte
Chaunte