Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[theHawk]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Homosexuals are much more likely to be mentally unstable and violent.

They also commit acts of treason higher than other groups.

Those are good reasons to fire them.

 

[Brynmr]

Employers should have the freedom to hire or fire who they like. If a Christian employee working for a Christian organization converts to Islam, the organization should have the right to terminate that employee if they so desire. Liberals however, would see this freedom eliminated.

 

[Skylar]

The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.

“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"

When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal

Fury

There are no federal protections for sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act. This is relatively similar to Barron V. Baltimore. The courts recognize bullshit allowed by States. But also recognize that they have no authority to prevent it.

A supreme court ruling could extend say, Due Process protections. But a lower court has no authority to do so.

I think that is what I pointed out. NO protection.

Under Federal Law. The law could be changed, or a higher court ruling could change that. But a lower federal court has no means to extend such protections.

But as the laws stands NOW its legal to fire a homo for being a homo. Which is what I stated.

As the law stands now, its difficult for a lower court to extend federal protections to gays. They have sometimes argued that such discrimination is actually a form of sexual discrimination. But its some weak tea.

This is definitely a decision to be made at a higher pay grade.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

HOT MAMAS

View attachment 83643

Milo said lesbians were all fat like this photo.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the article linked in the OP

"While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress."

Would not a change coming from a ruling from the Supreme Court be in effected legislating from the bench?

I think so and would be illegal as such.

Yet it's what the modern supreme court does, legislate from the bench.

 

[Skylar]

From the article linked in the OP

"While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress."

Would not a change coming from a ruling from the Supreme Court be in effected legislating from the bench?

I think so and would be illegal as such.

Yet it's what the modern supreme court does, legislate from the bench.

The supreme court places the constitution above the law. As they should.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the article linked in the OP

"While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress."

Would not a change coming from a ruling from the Supreme Court be in effected legislating from the bench?

I think so and would be illegal as such.

Yet it's what the modern supreme court does, legislate from the bench.

The supreme court places the constitution above the law. As they should.

That does not require legislation from the bench.

 

[Skylar]

From the article linked in the OP

"While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress."

Would not a change coming from a ruling from the Supreme Court be in effected legislating from the bench?

I think so and would be illegal as such.

Yet it's what the modern supreme court does, legislate from the bench.

The supreme court places the constitution above the law. As they should.

That does not require legislation from the bench.

Many instances of placing the constitution above the law have been called 'legislating from the bench' by those who disagree with a ruling.

 

[Fang]

Well, if you can fire someone for having a Confederate flag hanging in their back yard (the cop thread), then you can certainly fire someone for being gay.

 

[The Professor]

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised in the case was not appealed.

The question is whether homosexuals are protected under the provisions of Title VII. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the issue in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The issue in that case was whether workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against “discrimination because of sex,” when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex. Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS Decision

“He [Joseph Oncale] was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority, App. 41, 77, 43. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape” (explanatory insertion my own).

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a)(1). ….'When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.' Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”

“If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”

“Courts have had little trouble with that principle in cases like Johnson, where an employee claims to have been passed over for a job or promotion. But when the issue arises in the context of a “hostile environment” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same-sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser’s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).”

“Because we conclude that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.

Of course, that is only my humble opinion.

 

[Skylar]

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised in the case was not appealed.

The question is whether homosexuals are protected under the provisions of Title VII. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the issue in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The issue in that case was whether workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against “discrimination because of sex,” when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex. Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS Decision

“He [Joseph Oncale] was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority, App. 41, 77, 43. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape” (explanatory insertion my own).

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a)(1). ….'When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.' Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”

“If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”

“Courts have had little trouble with that principle in cases like Johnson, where an employee claims to have been passed over for a job or promotion. But when the issue arises in the context of a “hostile environment” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same-sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser’s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).”

“Because we conclude that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.

Of course, that is only my humble opinion.

That's some weak tea. Oncale was about sexual harassment, finding that it did apply even if the harassment occurred between members of the same sex. It specifically stated that the fact that the harrasser was a man was not significant to the outcome of the case.

Although we ultimately rejected the claim on other grounds, we did not consider it significant that the supervisor who made that decision was also a man. See id., at 624—625. If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.

ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC.

It had nothing to do with sexual orientation nor did it afford any protection to gays.

The EEOC's ruling is an executive function, not judiciary. It creates no binding precedent for any lower federal court. Nor has their ruling ever been applied to any State. But instead, exclusively to federal employees. Its also ludicrously recent, having occurred barely a year ago.

There was no sexual harassment alleged in the case in question. Making Oncale irrelevant to it. As the gender of the harasser has no significance to the protection afforded to individuals under the Civil Rights act.

 

[The Professor]

Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.

You mean like the freedom to use a bathroom with people of the same sex as yourself?

You said it all.

It seems that those who consider themselves “transgendered” can use whatever bathroom they want. However, the overwhelming majority of women – as that term has been defined for centuries - are denied this same right. A woman who wants to pee only in the presence of other woman is denied her choice and called a hater. All I can say is: WTF?

I remember someone on USMB who posted a picture of very beautiful, very feminine “girls” who turned out to be males. The poster said something to the effect of, “These are the people the republicans are trying to keep out of the ladies room.” I didn't respond but I couldn't stop thinking, not so. If someone really looks like a woman and acts like a woman other woman won't know that they are actually dudes. What I should have done is posted a picture of a bunch of bikers with beards, beer bellies, bulging arms and tattoos and said, “These are the ones the liberals want to allow into the ladies room.”

At one time, my law school had very few women, but by the time I attended in the 80s female enrollment had increased dramatically. Unfortunately, there was only one bathroom designated for women and I believe three for men. The women complained of long waiting lines which sometimes caused them to be late for class. The university responded by giving one of the men's rooms to the ladie, but the only change they made was the sign on the door. The urinals were not removed and the women found their presence to be offensive. They wanted their restroom to reflect their tastes and they resented the anti-feminine ambiance created by the urinals. Taking matters into their own hands, they turned all the urinals into planters!

 

[The Professor]

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised in the case was not appealed.

The question is whether homosexuals are protected under the provisions of Title VII. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the issue in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The issue in that case was whether workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against “discrimination because of sex,” when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex. Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS Decision

“He [Joseph Oncale] was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority, App. 41, 77, 43. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape” (explanatory insertion my own).

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a)(1). ….'When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.' Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”

“If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”

“Courts have had little trouble with that principle in cases like Johnson, where an employee claims to have been passed over for a job or promotion. But when the issue arises in the context of a “hostile environment” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same-sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser’s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).”

“Because we conclude that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.

Of course, that is only my humble opinion.

That's some weak tea. Oncale was about sexual harassment, finding that it did apply even if the harassment occurred between members of the same sex. It specifically stated that the fact that the harrasser was a man was not significant to the outcome of the case.

Although we ultimately rejected the claim on other grounds, we did not consider it significant that the supervisor who made that decision was also a man. See id., at 624—625. If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.

ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC.

It had nothing to do with sexual orientation nor did it afford any protection to gays.

The EEOC's ruling is an executive function, not judiciary. It creates no binding precedent for any lower federal court. Nor has their ruling ever been applied to any State. But instead, exclusively to federal employees. Its also ludicrously recent, having occurred barely a year ago.

There was no sexual harassment alleged in the case in question. Making Oncale irrelevant to it. As the gender of the harasser has no significance to the protection afforded to individuals under the Civil Rights act.

You didn't understand the case. The Court found that discrimination based upon sexual orientation was protected by Title VII. You are obviously not a lawyer otherwise you would understand that Title VII could not possibly apply to sexual harassment based upon sexual orientation and not apply to other and types of discrimination (promotions and hirings) based upon sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is either a protected class or it isn't. The SCOTUS sure as hell felt that it is.

I accept your apologies for your condescending comments about the EEOC. I practiced before the EEOC for almost 50 years, both as an attorney and an elected union officer. I didn't need you to tell me about its jurisdiction and purpose.

Now I am done with you and this thread.

 

[Skylar]

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised in the case was not appealed.

The question is whether homosexuals are protected under the provisions of Title VII. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the issue in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The issue in that case was whether workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against “discrimination because of sex,” when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex. Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS Decision

“He [Joseph Oncale] was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority, App. 41, 77, 43. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape” (explanatory insertion my own).

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a)(1). ….'When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.' Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”

“If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”

“Courts have had little trouble with that principle in cases like Johnson, where an employee claims to have been passed over for a job or promotion. But when the issue arises in the context of a “hostile environment” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same-sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser’s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).”

“Because we conclude that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.

Of course, that is only my humble opinion.

That's some weak tea. Oncale was about sexual harassment, finding that it did apply even if the harassment occurred between members of the same sex. It specifically stated that the fact that the harrasser was a man was not significant to the outcome of the case.

Although we ultimately rejected the claim on other grounds, we did not consider it significant that the supervisor who made that decision was also a man. See id., at 624—625. If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.

ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC.

It had nothing to do with sexual orientation nor did it afford any protection to gays.

The EEOC's ruling is an executive function, not judiciary. It creates no binding precedent for any lower federal court. Nor has their ruling ever been applied to any State. But instead, exclusively to federal employees. Its also ludicrously recent, having occurred barely a year ago.

There was no sexual harassment alleged in the case in question. Making Oncale irrelevant to it. As the gender of the harasser has no significance to the protection afforded to individuals under the Civil Rights act.

You didn't understand the case. The Court found that discrimination based upon sexual orientation was protected by Title VII.

No, they didn't. They said that discrimination "because....of sex" was illegal under Title VII. The Oncale ruling affords no protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Nor does it ever claim to.

Have you even read the ruling?

You are obviously not a lawyer otherwise you would understand that Title VII could not possibly apply to sexual harassment based upon sexual orientation and not apply to other and types of discrimination (promotions and hirings) based upon sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is either a protected class or it isn't. The SCOTUS sure as hell felt that it is.

You're quite confused. I've never claimed that Title VII could apply to sexual harassment based on sexual orientation.

Quite the opposite, I've said that you've misapplied Oncale as it is a case about sexual harassment, not sexual orientation.

Title VII prohibits “discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex” in the “terms” or “conditions” of employment. Our holding that this includes sexual harassment must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements.

ONCALE, PETITIONER v. SUNDOWNER

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

You're just beating strawmen while inadvertantly bolstering my case. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need the strawmen.

I accept your apologies for your condescending comments about the EEOC. I practiced before the EEOC for almost 50 years, both as an attorney and an elected union officer. I didn't need you to tell me about its jurisdiction and purpose.

Prove it. As I've been unimpressed by your reading comprehension or understanding of the law. Both of which are vitally necessary for your claimed 'expertise'.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your awkward Appeal to Authority fallacy. As your argument clearly doesn't stand on its merit, logic or legal precedent.

Now I am done with you and this thread.

When you muster the courage for another round of education on the law, I'll be here.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the article linked in the OP

"While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress."

Would not a change coming from a ruling from the Supreme Court be in effected legislating from the bench?

I think so and would be illegal as such.

Yet it's what the modern supreme court does, legislate from the bench.

The supreme court places the constitution above the law. As they should.

That does not require legislation from the bench.

Many instances of placing the constitution above the law have been called 'legislating from the bench' by those who disagree with a ruling.

True, but legislating from the bench can be done, even when I would tend to agree with outcome. It is when the courts, "interprets", what is obviously not writen into the law or the constitution.

 

[The Professor]

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised in the case was not appealed.

The question is whether homosexuals are protected under the provisions of Title VII. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the issue in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The issue in that case was whether workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against “discrimination because of sex,” when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex. Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS Decision

“He [Joseph Oncale] was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority, App. 41, 77, 43. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape” (explanatory insertion my own).

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a)(1). ….'When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.' Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”

“If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”

“Courts have had little trouble with that principle in cases like Johnson, where an employee claims to have been passed over for a job or promotion. But when the issue arises in the context of a “hostile environment” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same-sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser’s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).”

“Because we conclude that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.

Of course, that is only my humble opinion.

That's some weak tea. Oncale was about sexual harassment, finding that it did apply even if the harassment occurred between members of the same sex. It specifically stated that the fact that the harrasser was a man was not significant to the outcome of the case.

Although we ultimately rejected the claim on other grounds, we did not consider it significant that the supervisor who made that decision was also a man. See id., at 624—625. If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.

ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC.

It had nothing to do with sexual orientation nor did it afford any protection to gays.

The EEOC's ruling is an executive function, not judiciary. It creates no binding precedent for any lower federal court. Nor has their ruling ever been applied to any State. But instead, exclusively to federal employees. Its also ludicrously recent, having occurred barely a year ago.

There was no sexual harassment alleged in the case in question. Making Oncale irrelevant to it. As the gender of the harasser has no significance to the protection afforded to individuals under the Civil Rights act.

You didn't understand the case. The Court found that discrimination based upon sexual orientation was protected by Title VII.

No, they didn't. They said that discrimination "because....of sex" was illegal under Title VII. The Oncale ruling affords no protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Nor does it ever claim to.

Have you even read the ruling?

You are obviously not a lawyer otherwise you would understand that Title VII could not possibly apply to sexual harassment based upon sexual orientation and not apply to other and types of discrimination (promotions and hirings) based upon sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is either a protected class or it isn't. The SCOTUS sure as hell felt that it is.

You're quite confused. I've never claimed that Title VII could apply to sexual harassment based on sexual orientation.

Quite the opposite, I've said that you've misapplied Oncale as it is a case about sexual harassment, not sexual orientation.

Title VII prohibits “discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex” in the “terms” or “conditions” of employment. Our holding that this includes sexual harassment must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements.

ONCALE, PETITIONER v. SUNDOWNER

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

You're just beating strawmen while inadvertantly bolstering my case. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need the strawmen.

I accept your apologies for your condescending comments about the EEOC. I practiced before the EEOC for almost 50 years, both as an attorney and an elected union officer. I didn't need you to tell me about its jurisdiction and purpose.

Prove it. As I've been unimpressed by your reading comprehension or understanding of the law. Both of which are vitally necessary for your claimed 'expertise'.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your awkward Appeal to Authority fallacy. As your argument clearly doesn't stand on its merit, logic or legal precedent.

Now I am done with you and this thread.

When you muster the courage for another round of education on the law, I'll be here.

Usually when I say I am done with a thread I leave it for good. I will make an exception in this case just to show what an ignoramus you are.

The only point I was trying to make – and I did – was that both the SCOTUS and the EEOC considered sexual orientation to be covered by Title VII. The Court ruled that a hostile work environment created because of someone's sexual orientation was covered by Title VII. Common sense should tell you that if intimidation based upon sexual orientation is covered by Title VII then so is firing someone based upon sexual orientation. As I said and you will never grasp: sexual orientation is either included in Title VII or it is not. It cannot be included in some types of discrimination and not others. At this time I think it is appropriate for me to add: Duh!

The EEOC considers “sex” as that word is defined in Title VII to apply to sexual orientation. The exact words I quoted were: “In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it 'applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.' According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Oh well, if you don't get it I am sure most others will.

By the way, I missed it earlier, but you actually said:

“The EEOC's ruling is an executive function, not judiciary. It creates no binding precedent for any lower federal court. Nor has their ruling ever been applied to any State. But instead, exclusively to federal employees. Its also ludicrously recent, having occurred barely a year ago” (highlights my own).

You actually believe that EEOC rules apply only to federal employees/employers. I never heard anyone else say that before (probably because everyone else is smarter than you). When it comes to the EEOC your ignorance is laughable. Here's a link for you. Read it and learn who is really covered by the rules of the EEOC. (Hint: it's not just federal employees). Just out of curiosity, where in the hell did you get this stupid stuff?

Coverage

Now, I am really and truly done with your nonsense. Let me known when you finish law school and have practiced before the EEEOC for a few decades. Then we will get together for an intelligent chat, something which your present level of maturity, education and knowledge prevents.

NOTE TO OTHER POSTERS: Skylar said that the EEOC rules apply “exclusively to federal employees.” What he said is pure hogwash. If you work for a private employer you may be able to file a discrimination case with the EEOC. There are a few limited restrictions. Check the link I provided above.

Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

Good night and good by.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Actually, you can. In over 30 states. You can also refuse to hire them for that reason....and refuse to rent space to them for that reason.

Seems unAmerican, doesn't it?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

I'll never be a cheerleader for the lifestyle, but I agree with this. If they are willing to work, they should be allowed to. To me anything is better than a lazy person.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Conservative65]

Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Actually, you can. In over 30 states. You can also refuse to hire them for that reason....and refuse to rent space to them for that reason.

Seems unAmerican, doesn't it?

It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.

What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.

I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Actually, you can. In over 30 states. You can also refuse to hire them for that reason....and refuse to rent space to them for that reason.

Seems unAmerican, doesn't it?

It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.

What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.

I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.

Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.

I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".

Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.

Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.