U.S. high court turns away dispute over gay worker protections

  • In US
  • 2017-12-11 14:54:19Z
  • By By Andrew Chung

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by a Georgia security guard who said she was harassed and forced from her job because she is a lesbian, avoiding an opportunity to decide whether a federal law that bans gender-based bias also outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The justices left in place a lower court ruling against Jameka Evans, who had argued that workplace sexual orientation discrimination violates Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Workplace protections are a major source of concern for advocates of rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The case hinged on an argument that is currently being litigated in different parts of the United States and has divided lower courts: whether Title VII, which bans employment discrimination based on sex, also outlaws bias based on sexual orientation. Title VII also bars employment discrimination based on race, color, religion and national origin.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an independent federal agency that enforces Title VII, had argued since 2012, during Democratic former President Barack Obama's administration, that bias against gay workers violates the law.

But in July, Republican President Donald Trump's administration argued the opposite in a separate case. That case, involving a skydiving instructor who said he lost his job after telling a customer he was gay, is currently pending before a New York federal appeals court.

Evans in 2015 sued Georgia Regional Hospital at Savannah, a psychiatric facility, and several of its officials.

She alleged that while she worked there from 2012 to 2013, her supervisor tried to force her to quit because she wore a male uniform and did not conform to female gender stereotypes. She said the supervisor asked questions about her relationships, prompted a junior employee above her, and physically slammed a door into her body.

In March, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the hospital, saying that only the Supreme Court can declare that Title VII's protections cover gay workers.

Represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, an LGBT legal advocacy group, Evans appealed to the Supreme Court. Her lawyers cited language in the high court's landmark 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide that discriminating against gay people diminishes their personhood.

Her case was backed by nearly 80 companies, including Microsoft and Apple, as well as 17 states and the District of Columbia.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)


More Related News

Travel ban case is justices
Travel ban case is justices' first dive into Trump policy

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has so far had little to say about Donald Trump's time as president, even as the nation has moved from one Trump controversy to another. That's about to change.

Sexist Job Ads Show Discrimination Rife at China Tech Giants
Sexist Job Ads Show Discrimination Rife at China Tech Giants

Workplace discrimination in China often begins with help-wanted ads. Job recruitment websites routinely feature advertisements from prominent technology employers such as Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Baidu Inc. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. for positions that are open only to men, according to a report released by Human Rights Watch on Monday. With the three big internet companies boasting they have "beautiful girls" or "goddesses," those ads contribute to widespread gender discrimination in the workplace, Human Rights Watch said.

Trump's travel ban faces U.S. Supreme Court showdown

By Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first big showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's immigration policies is set for Wednesday when the justices hear a challenge to the lawfulness of his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. Chad previously was on the list but Trump lifted those restrictions on April 10. The high court has never decided the legal merits of the travel ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply


Top News: US

Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.