They have already ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act's sex provision does not include sexual orientation in a previous ruling, but the 7th circuit has ruled that is does.
This case is a gay male skydiving instructor who told a female tandem jumper not to worry about her boyfriend, when they were about to jump in close proximity, because he was gay.
She told her boyfriend, who called the employer, who then had Donald Zarda fired. He died in a BASE jumping incident in Switzerland 3 years ago but his lawsuit lives on.
At issue is whether sex, as a protected class under federal law, includes sexual orientation:
Here's a snippet of the 7th circuit ruling:
As the panel noted, it creates “a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.” 830 F.3d at 714. Finally, the panel highlighted the sharp tension between a rule that fails to recognize that discrimination on the basis of the sex with whom a person associates is a form of sex discrimination, and the rule, recognized since Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), that discrimination on the basis of the race with whom a person associates is a form of racial discrimination.
The dissent criticizes us for not trying to rule out sexual-orientation discrimination by controlling for it in our comparator example and for not placing any weight on the fact that if someone had asked Ivy Tech what its reasons were at the time of the discriminatory conduct, it probably would have said “sexual orientation,” not “sex.” We assume that this is true, but this thought experiment does not answer the question before us—instead, it begs that question. It commits the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion it sets out to prove. It makes no sense to control for or rule out discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if the question before us is whether that type of discrimination is nothing more or less than a form of sex discrimination.
The Second Circuit took the same position two decades later in Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008), in which a white former employee of the college sued, alleging that it fired him from his job as associate coach of the men’s basketball team because he was married to an African-American woman. The court held “that an employer may violate Title VII if it takes action against an employee because of the employee’s association with a person of another race.” Id. at 132. It stressed that the plaintiff’s case did not depend on third-party injury. To the contrary, it held, “where an employee is subjected to adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers dis- crimination because of the employee’s own race.” Id. at 139. Had the plaintiff been African-American, the question whether race discrimination tainted the employer’s action would have depended on different facts.
Jaxon Bell
It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the “sex” from “sexual orientation.” The effort to do so has led to confusing and contradictory results, as our panel opinion illustrated so well.5 The EEOC concluded, in its Baldwin deci- sion, that such an effort cannot be reconciled with the straight- forward language of Title VII. Many district courts have come to the same conclusion. See, e.g., Boutillier v. Hartford Pub. Sch., No. 3:13-CV-01303-WWE, 2016 WL 6818348 (D. Conn. Nov. 17, 2016); U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Scott Med. Ctr., P.C., No. CV 16-225, 2016 WL 6569233 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2016); Winstead v. Lafayette Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, No. 1:16CV00054-MW-GRJ, 2016 WL 3440601 (N.D. Fla. June 20,
Austin Gonzalez
The dissent contends that a fluent speaker of the English language would understand that “sex” does not include the concept of “sexual ori- entation,” and this ought to demonstrate that the two are easily distin- guishable and not the same. But this again assumes the answer to the ques- tion before us: how to interpret the statute in light of the guidance the Supreme Court has provided. The dissent is correct that the term “sexual orientation” was not defined in the dictionary around the time of Title VII’s enactment, but neither was the term “sexual harassment”—a concept that, although it can be distinguished from “sex,” has at least since 1986 been included by the Supreme Court under the umbrella of sex discrimi- nation. See WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (7th ed. 1963) (lacking an entry for “sexual harassment” or “sexual orientation”); THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1st ed. 1969) (same). The dissent postulates that it is implausible that a reasonable person in 1964 could have understood discrimination based on sex to include sexual orientation discrimination. But that reasonable person similarly may not have understood it to include sexual harassment (and, by extension, not male-on-male sexual harassment). As Oncale said, we are concerned with the provisions of the law, not the principal concerns of those who wrote it. 523 U.S. at 80. The approach we have taken does just that.
Nicholas Smith
bump
Joshua Ortiz
gys faggot.
Isaiah Lewis
Why the hatred?
Lincoln Cruz
bump
Nicholas Moore
U first m8
It will be an interesting case. Sexual preference shouldn't be a protected status since liberals say its a social construct, no different than having a favorite color. That shouldn't make you a protected class.
Noah Moore
bump also for a real thread in a sea of shit
Jacob White
Thanks!
Robert Torres
>>>>>>>>>>
Juan Peterson
I think it's terrible, trying to interfere with gay men being dropped out of aircraft
Nolan Ortiz
He died from BASE jumping, which doesn't involve aircraft.
Adrian Cook
I don't really get it, and I don't really get why I should care. LGB shit is stupid and overblown and T people are retarded.
This must be a leaf issue because no other country would give this much of a fuck.
Brayden Davis
I wonder who's been dropping AIDS meat from the sky recently...
John Mitchell
This is the United States. In Canada, as in Australia and the United Kingdom, employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal already. The issue here is that you have about 20 states where that is illegal here, but no federal law one way of the other.
Ethan Anderson
Yeah, but what's the issue here, why does this deserve a bump? Why do I care?
He was fired for making advances on the chicks boyfriend, or just for being gay? I'm confused.
Adam Rogers
Whether discriminating against a gay person for not conforming to expected gender stereotypes is sex discrimination, which is federally illegal vs some sort of lesser sexual orientation - only class which is only illegal in 22 or so states.
He didn't make an advance on her. He is gay. That's the point of the lawsuit. They are saying if he was a woman and made the comment, he would not have been fired. Therefore this is sex discrimination.
Jason Wilson
fuck off, if it was man making a pass at a woman he would have been fucking fired
Fucking fags asked for equality right ?
Oliver Jones
He isn't gay. He chose to be attracted to men. Social construct, if you disagree you are a bigot.
this
Logan Barnes
There should be no protected classes. I shouldn't have to work with niggers if I don't want to. I shouldn't have to hire annoying women who bring their fee fees into the workplace.
And Title VII is where workplace diversity pushes and speech codes comes from. It's judeo Bolshevik effect is not discussed nearly enough on here.
Blake Reed
Yah but "I'm gay" doesn't mean anything. He could have made an advance on her and maybe that's why he's fired. This is a poor liberal argument that he can commit no crimes because he's gay. He gets more points in the Oppression Olympics, so he gets a free pass on sexual harassment?
I think the issue here is whether or not he was making advances on the girl to the point where the guy complained about him.
And I honestly don't care if he was fired for being gay. In my opinion, employers can fire their employees for any reason they want. If they are not a good fit for the company, they are not a good fit.
Owen King
WHY DO GAY PEOPLE HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THEIR DEGENERACY IN THE FIRST PLACE! Proves that they are shallow sex-obsessed assholes who only care about themselves and their perceived oppression.
Brandon Baker
If it was a woman making a pass it would have been less bad. The issue was that he, as a male, was hitting on her. The issue was that he doesn't conform to gender stereotypes, that men are supposed to be polite to women who are partnered, which doesn't apply to him because he is a homosexual. Therefore he was discriminated for not conforming to gender stereotypes, which is federally prohibited. The issue against gay people is that they are men who are not doing what men are "supposed" to do as males.
The Supreme Court said that homosexuality was innate and there is a lot of evidence from twin studies, fraternal birth order, and other things, that sexuality is innate as far as we know.
He didn't though. He just joked that he was gay so her boyfriend didn't have to worry. Nobody is claiming he made advances on her. The issue is whether firing a gay man for being gay is sexual discrimination.
Gavin Rogers
Fuck off you fruit cake
>If it was a woman making a pass it would have been less bad.
Yeah we hate double standards too, still isn't something appropriate to do on the job. Fuck off and neck yourself
Asher Russell
The case was originally thrown out in the federal district court because as it stands Title VII doesn't protect discrimination against sexual orientation and never has. There is a state law that does protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but he lost his case in state court. Basically the guy was fired for sexual harassing his client. It doesn't matter that he was gay or that he wasn't actually attracted to her, he was fired for his behavior, rather than for any discriminatory reasons. While I think the judges in the 2nd circuit might want to rule that Title VII does protect sexual orientation, I don't think they will because the plain meaning of the law and it's historical interpretations pretty clearly shows that it doesn't.
Blake Anderson
The issue was a man hitting on a woman, no?
Carter Howard
No, the seventh circuit has ruled that it does. The court merely declined to consider the argument based on that they had ruled it doesn't before, and they only had a panel so they could not overturn another panel. Now the full court is hearing the case so they can actually address the argument.
Easton Lopez
How do we know he was fired for being gay? How can we prevent gays who are bad workers saying they're gay when they think they're going to get fired and then claiming that this was the reason?
As with all sexual politics these days, the burden of proof always falls on the straight guy or male, for no good reason whatsoever.
Jeremiah Rodriguez
I agree m8.
Aiden King
While this Court has stated that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33, 36 (2d Cir. 2000), the Supreme Court has held that Title VII does forbid discrimination based on a failure to conform to “sex stereotypes,” Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 251 (1989). See also Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211, 217-19 (2d Cir. 2005) (reaffirming Simonton). In light of these precedents, Zarda premised his Title VII cause of action on the ground that he had been terminated for failing to conform to sex stereotypes. Specifically, Zarda alleged that his employer “criticized [Zarda’s] wearing of the color pink at work” and his practice of painting his toenails pink, notwithstanding Zarda’s “typically masculine demeanor.” J. App’x at 30. Accordingly, the district court, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants without analyzing whether Zarda could rely on a “sex stereotype” that men should date women. Instead, the district court limited its analysis to the “sex stereotypes” alleged by Zarda, including “what you may wear or how you may behave.” Special App’x at 26. Determining that Zarda failed to establish the requisite proximity between his termination and his proffered instances of gender non-conformity (not including the fact that he dated other men), the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on Zarda’s Title VII claim.
He told the woman he was gay before the skydive and was fired.
Liam Gutierrez
The EEOC, the federal agency responsible for administering civil rights issues regarding workers, stated in 2015 that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.
Eli Ross
Zarda asserts that Simonton’s holding that “Title VII does not proscribe discrimination because of sexual orientation” is incorrect and should be overturned. 232 F.3d at 36. As a threshold matter, Altitude Express contends that we need not consider this argument in light of the jury verdict in favor of the defendants on Zarda’s state-law discrimination claim. Essentially, Altitude Express argues that the scope of Title VII’s protections are irrelevant to Zarda’s appeal because the jury found that Altitude Express had not discriminated.
Altitude Express is incorrect; Zarda’s sex-discrimination claim is properly before us because the district court held him to a higher standard of causation than required by Title VII. Under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate that sex “was a ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor contributing to the employer’s decision to take the [adverse employment] action.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 85 (2d Cir. 2015). Accordingly, to show causation for sex discrimination under Title VII, “[i]t suffices . . . to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer’s motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer’s decision.” Univ. of Tx. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2523 (2013).
At trial, the district court instructed the jury that Zarda could prevail on his state-law sexual-orientation discrimination claim only if he could prove that “he would have continued to work for Altitude Express . . . except for the fact that he was gay.”4 J. App’x at 1771. In other words, the jury charge required Zarda to prove but-for causation, which is a higher standard of causation than is necessary for Title VII sex-discrimination claims. See Vega, 801 F.3d at 86 (“[A] plaintiff in a Title VII case need not allege ‘but-for’ causation.”).
Isaac Wright
tl;dr version is that a state law against sexual orientation apparently requires one to prove that being gay was the only reason one was fired whereas the burden for federal law is merely that sex was a factor in the firing.
Camden Carter
quick rundown on the case?
Jeremiah Stewart
Gay skydiving is all just an excuse to spy on children in playgrounds and get a good jerk off before your land. By the time anyone realizes they've got cum in their hair, you'll be long gone from the scene of the crime.
Ethan Long
>be a fag >get fired for being a fag >die from based aids i see no problem here
Nathaniel Martinez
I gave one in the original post. A skydiver was fired. He claims it was for being gay. Employer disagrees. Issue is whether federal law about sex covers sexual orientation because then the skydiver only had to prove that being gay was a factor in his firing, not the only reason.
Jace Baker
Check that fags hat >((( )))
Aaron Cooper
If Zarda is correct that discrimination based on sexual orientation is equivalent to prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII, then he would have been entitled to a jury instruction on the less stringent “motivating-factor” test for causation. See Gordon v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 2000) (indicating that an instruction that advises the jury on an erroneously high burden of proof warrants a new trial). It is entirely possible that a jury thought that Zarda’s sexual orientation was “one of the employer’s motives” (i.e. a “motivating factor”) in its termination decision, but was not a “but-for cause” of his firing. In sum, if Title VII protects against sexual-orientation discrimination, then Zarda would be entitled to a new trial.
Jaxson Sullivan
>He didn't make an advance on her. He is gay. That's the point of the lawsuit. They are saying if he was a woman and made the comment, he would not have been fired. Therefore this is sex discrimination Inappropriate conduct is inappropriate conduct. Stop being so defensive fag.
Jack Rogers
thats the most flimflam argument I've ever heard
Christopher Rodriguez
Have you seen the discovery on this case? No you haven't. So stop pretending you know exactly what happened.
Noah Campbell
Why is inappropriate to disclose one's sexuality to a client as a skydiver. In his suit, Zarda claims a heterosexual counterpart did so and was not penalized.
Why? Sexual harassment was not defined when the 1964 CRA was passed but now it is included in scope. Why should sexual orientation, a fledgling concept in 1964, be necessarily banned from the same coverage because it too was not fully defined at the time the law was passed?
Chase Fisher
>being gay is totally normal we should enjoy more rights than straight white cis males.
Jack Peterson
No I'm just copying parts of the opinion. When did I claim to have seen the whole case?
Henry Thomas
Gay skydiver here, if anyone needs their chute packed HMU.
Carter Perry
No sexual orientation is not sex. It's a metaphor user, they're saying it's conceptually the same thing.
To understand the ruling you must ask some questions. What constituted the original ruling? The idea that categorical differences in peoples biological makeup should not predetermine their careers. Homosexuality and trans people are technically included as mental disability, laid out in the DSM. Sex is a safe way for them to avoid backlash
Ethan Cook
When women wear heels and tight clothing, you don't care. The issue is not the heels or the clothing, it is a man wearing it, counter to sex stereotypes. The Supreme Court has held that sex stereotyping counts as federally proscribed behavior under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Mason Brooks
Neither homosexuality nor transgenderism are included in the DSM anymore. The former has been recognized as innate by many courts.
Mason Campbell
Yeah, he made an inappropriate joke about making advances on a man's girlfriend, he complained and the lost his job.
Whether he was gay or not is irrelevant. He clearly made the couple uncomfortable to the point where they complained.
Are you trying to get /pol to rally to your side or are you trying to prove a point that gays are discriminated against?
Mason Diaz
Unless I overlooked something, what he did should have been a simple write up.
Connor Powell
What about the protection of the mentally disabled? Their categorization never changed.
Hudson Stewart
sorry your little safespace lied to you most americans hate faggots
Ryder Anderson
Because I generally don't want my teachers talking about their home or sex lives during class. Or joking that they're not hitting on students because they're gay. It's not appropriate at a College or Skydiving.
I also don't believe we have enough information to make any real judgement about this case. The lawyer is arguing that he was fired because he was gay, but there was clearly a complaint (potentially more than one) before this guy was fired.
You are just using him being gay as a get out of jail free card, when that may not even be related
Thomas Price
He said not to worry because he is gay. Why was that joke inappropriate? Because he is a man, right? So he should be expected to be attracted to women and therefore not be sexual with them. No?
How the fuck did this even make it to court? That's pretty clear cut "sexual harassment" (whether you agree with modern loose definitions or not) and thus a fire-able offense.
Being a fudgepacker has nothing to do with it. Gays playing the victim like always
Josiah Price
Clearly him being gay at least partly an issue here.
Owen White
> needing evidence he was hitting on her
Does poking her leg with his gay boner count?
Asher Reed
Merely being transgender is no longer included, only that specific symptom.
Either way, at issue here is homosexuality, which has not been included in decades.
Sebastian Hernandez
Because they fuck anything that moves? Including women?
Jacob Richardson
Because he was fired for telling a woman he was gay.
Here are the EEOCs arguments:
As Chief Judge Katzmann’s Christiansen concurrence noted, this Court did not have the benefit of three key arguments when it first addressed whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination includes a prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination. Christiansen, 852 F.3d at 202, 206-07 (Katzmann, C.J., concurring). Those three arguments – that sexual orientation discrimination treats otherwise similarly situated people differently solely because of their sex, constitutes associational discrimination, and necessarily involves impermissible sex stereotyping, all in violation of Title VII – lead inexorably to the conclusion that discrimination because of sexual orientation cannot rationally be distinguished from discrimination because of sex.
Sexual orientation discrimination is, by definition, discrimination “because of … sex,” in violation of Title VII.
Elijah Howard
>He died in a BASE jumping incident in Switzerland 3 years ago.
Fag lives splatter.
Nathaniel Robinson
In passing Title VII, Congress made the “simple but momentous announcement” that sex, like other protected characteristics, is “not relevant” to employment decisions; thus, in making such decisions, employers “may not take gender into account.” Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 239, 242 (1989). If an employer treats an employee less favorably than it would treat a comparable employee who, aside from his or her sex, is identical in all respects (including, for example, the sex of that employee’s spouse), the employer discriminates against the employee “because of sex.” See L.A. Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711 (1978) (employing “the simple test of whether the evidence shows treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different” to determine whether a sex-based violation of Title VII occurred (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 682-83 (1983) (applying Manhart’s “simple test of Title VII discrimination”); Baldwin, 2015 WL 4397641, at *5 (noting that an employer who fires a lesbian employee but not a male employee for displaying a photo of a female spouse at work would violate Title VII under Manhart by impermissibly taking the employee’s sex into account).
Ryan Cook
Several courts have already applied Manhart’s “simple test” to hold that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes discrimination because of sex. The Seventh Circuit en banc court posed the counterfactual scenario of “a situation in which [the plaintiff] is a man, but everything else stays the same: in particular, the sex or gender of the partner.” Hively v. Ivy Tech Community Coll., 853 F.3d 339, 345 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc). To the extent no discrimination would have occurred in this alternate scenario, the court concluded, “[t]his describes paradigmatic sex discrimination.” Id. (holding that sexual orientation discrimination therefore violates Title VII). In Hall v. BNSF Railway Co., similarly, the court held that a plaintiff, a man married to another man, successfully alleged sex discrimination under Title VII when he was denied a spousal health benefit available to similarly situated women married to men. No. C13-2160, 2014 WL 4719007, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2014). The court in Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club explained that a woman claiming sexual harassment could prove her claim if she could show that her manager would have treated her differently if she were a man dating a woman instead of a woman dating a woman. Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1223 (D. Or. 2002). In Videckis v. Pepperdine University, the court explained, “If Plaintiffs had been males dating females, instead of females dating females, they would not have been subjected to the alleged different treatment,” and therefore concluded that they “have stated a straightforward claim of sex discrimination.” Videckis v. Pepperdine Univ., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1151, 1161 (C.D. Cal. 2015).[3]
Hunter Hughes
Each of these cases recognizes the same principle: sexual orientation discrimination requires the employer to take the employee’s sex into account (in conjunction with the sex of that employee’s actual or desired partner). See Hively, 853 F.3d at 358 (Flaum, J., concurring) (“Fundamental to the definition of homosexuality is the sexual attraction to individuals of the ‘same sex.’ … One cannot consider a person’s homosexuality without also accounting for their sex: doing so would render ‘same’ and ‘own’ meaningless.”); Boutillier, 221 F. Supp. 3d at 267 (noting that sexual orientation discrimination necessarily requires a consideration of the sex of the individual, as well as that of the partner). In short, an employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on that employee’s sexual orientation without taking the employee’s sex into account – precisely what Title VII forbids. Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 242.
Under this analysis, it is irrelevant that an employer discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation does not discriminate against all men or women, but only against those who are gay or lesbian. Title VII has never required an employer to discriminate against all employees in a protected class before recognizing an individual employee’s claim. See Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 455 (1982) (“It is clear that Congress never intended to give an employer license to discriminate against some employees on the basis of … sex merely because [it] favorably treats other members of the employees’ group.”); Hively, 853 F.3d at 346 n.3 (“A failure to discriminate against all women does not mean that an employer has not discriminated against one woman on the basis of sex.”); Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107, 118 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that a valid claim of gender discrimination does not require discrimination against all members of a disfavored class).
Noah Smith
98% chance hilldog wins right??
Jaxson King
Sexual orientation discrimination also violates Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination because it treats individuals differently based on the sex of those with whom they associate. Just as discrimination against individuals based on the race of their partners and friends constitutes a violation of Title VII, discrimination based on the sex of those with whom an individual associates similarly violates the statute. Such associational discrimination necessarily, and illegally, takes into account the employee’s sex, in violation of Title VII. See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 243.
This Court recognized that associational discrimination violates Title VII. In Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008), decided eight years after Simonton, a white assistant college basketball coach alleged he had been terminated because he married a black woman. This Court held that he had established a prima face case of race discrimination, explaining that “an employer may violate Title VII if it takes action against an employee because of the employee’s association with a person of another race.” Id. at 132. The holding did not depend on a theory of third-party injury; to the contrary, this Court explained, “where an employee is subjected to adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race.” Id. at 139.
Cameron Harris
If we are going to have discrimination laws it shouldn't be done with the fucking protected classes. It just gives certain people special rights over others.
Right now I can fire someone for being fat, just because I don't like the way fat people look, but I can't fire someone for being black because I don't like the way black people look. It should just be that you are not allowed to discriminate at all without a valid reasons, or preferably we just get rid of discrimination laws all together.
Nicholas Jones
Sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves sex stereotyping, as it results in the adverse treatment of individuals because they do not conform to the norm that men should be attracted only to women, and women only to men. Such discrimination is at heart based on gender stereotypes – indeed, it is “as clear a gender stereotype as any.” Christiansen, 852 F.3d at 206 (Katzmann, C.J., concurring); see also Hively, 853 F.3d at 346 (characterizing the plaintiff’s lesbianism as representing “the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype” in modern America). It therefore violates Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination against employees “because of … sex.” Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 240 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)).
Price Waterhouse involved a woman perceived by her employer to be insufficiently feminine. Six justices agreed that comments the defendant’s representatives made about the plaintiff – that she was “macho” and “overcompensat[ing] for being a woman,” and would have better chances of promotion to partnership at her firm if she would “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry” – indicated discrimination based on sex stereotypes that is illegal under Title VII. Id. at 235, 251. As the Court held, “[W]e are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.” Id. at 251. This conclusion followed from the Court’s earlier recognition that Congress passed Title VII “to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.” Id. (quoting Manhart, 435 U.S. at 707 n.13).
Easton King
Businesses and people should have the right to discriminate.
John Garcia
Kek
Jeremiah Walker
>Katzmann it alllll makes sense now
Elijah Richardson
There needs to be more bait in this thread to pissoff the gay right campaigners who came here to shitpost this crap.
Fuck this shit.
Parker Sanders
fuck all homos
Christopher James
A. This isn't evidence of anything, it's he said/she said. The story is just twisted to defend the person because he's gay. It has a liberal bias in that it implies gay people are inherently oppressed by default.
B. I don't see any issue with firing him for being gay. Employers can fire people for any reason they want. If they were good employees, they wouldn't fire them without a good reason. Even if he was fired for being gay, I don't think that's an issue. I think a gay bar can fire people for being straight and I wouldn't complain either.
Evan Hernandez
Well the issue is if he is covered under federal law he has a right to a new trial.
Employers cannot fire you for being Black, or having Black friends. Why should they be able to fire you for having male sex friends? How is that not sex discrimination (which is prohibited)?
Isaac Cook
This seems like a collosal waste of money spent on arguing pointless semantics when the involved parties stopped caring or fucking DIED ages ago.
Xavier Davis
BASE Gay man
Camden Robinson
>Unless I overlooked something, what he did should have been a simple write up. He coulda been an all around douche and this was the straw that broke the camels back for the employer.
Luis Scott
They can't, but I don't disagree with them if they do.
But I'm OK with it if she was. I don't see an issue with people being fired or hired based on discrimination.
I don't think hooters should be forced to hire men or ugly people. I don't think IT companies should hire people based on race and sex quotas. I really don't care if this guy was fired for being gay. Private companies should be able to do whatever they want.
Jaxon Torres
The issue is not if discrimination laws are valid, but if sex stereotyping of gay men and women is a form of sex discrimination. It is really hard to argue logically that sex excludes sexual orientation apart from it not having been applied as such earlier. As I said, this is a moot point in Canada where this is already specifically and explicitly proscribed.
Courts have also ruled that racial and sexual quotas are impermissible so that is irrelevant. The issue is if you fire a gay man or woman for who they have sex with, is that sex discrimination?
You can argue that no discrimination laws should be held valid but that would overturn decades of strong precedent regarding sex and racial discrimination being proscribed by the courts.
Alexander Jones
my point is that you can't prove it's sexual discrimination. Just because the woman spoke to hios boss doesn't mean he was fired for this reason. Also, it is likely he was going to get fired anyway. Basically, gays parriting on about their being gay becomes a way to justify any dismissal as sexual discrimination, which is not fair to non-gays.
Juan Jackson
Being gay isn't a sex. He's a male.
Hunter Nguyen
The issue was whether his behavior, as a male, conformed to expected sex stereotypes.
Clearly that was an issue as the court felt he had a reason to have a claim under state law re: sexual orientation, just not federal law. That's the issue here.
Jace Gray
This nigger with the fag flag writes an unnecessary book with every post, so can someone give me a normal explanation of what this is all about?
Michael Rodriguez
>die base jumping in swizerland >Not not suicide....
Ok. But I don't agree with those laws. You can't measure sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity. You can simply take someone's word for it, and that isn't a reasonable to defense for making a customer uncomfortable.
Hunter Stewart
A skydiver was fired. He claims it was for being gay. Employer disagrees. Issue is whether federal law about sex covers sexual orientation because then the skydiver only had to prove that being gay was a factor in his firing, not the only reason.
Carter Sanders
Muhammed's base jumping service?
Carter Lopez
We don't measure religion either but that is a protected class as well.
Jack Torres
You faggots ever stop to think that if you fucked off after gay marraige then everything would go more smoothly? How many more dildo waving look at me parades do you want? You are on a tibetan throat singing forum throwing a tizzy over a dead mans court case. Try being idk, silent about your sexuality like normal people. I never march in a parade with and scream about my straightness.
Ryan Howard
>As the panel noted, it creates “a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.” 830 F.3d at 714. Finally, the panel highlighted the sharp tension between a rule that fails to recognize that discrimination on the basis of the sex with whom a person associates is a form of sex discrimination, and the rule, recognized since Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), that discrimination on the basis of the race with whom a person associates is a form of racial discrimination.