Supreme Court Rules American Workers Can’t Be Fired For Being Gay Or Trans, Defying White House

Update (1100ET): In a series of tweets, Glenn Greenwald parses the logic undergirding the majority opinion, and what it portends for future rulings from the conservative-dominated court.

The Gorsuch opinion was joined by John Roberts, as well as the 4 court liberals.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 15, 2020

Wow – the majority opinion here written by . . . Neil Gorsuch 🏳️‍🌈 https://t.co/3TwaBG7xgV

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 15, 2020

This @voxdotcom article from last year by @imillhiser proved prescient in explaining why Gorsuch made very well side with the court’s liberals in holding that Title VII bars the firing of gay and trans employees for being LGBT: https://t.co/zTmYTPPetK

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 15, 2020

Gorsuch didn’t conclude that he personally believes it’s wrong to fire employees for being LGBT. He didn’t conclude it *should* be illegal to do so.

He only concluded that the plain language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whether it intended this or not, requires that outcome: pic.twitter.com/CCHYDhGppG

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 15, 2020

In other words, Gorsuch set aside his own personal beliefs about what the law should be – and ignored what he believed the framers intended – to interpret the law as it was written: its text (that’s why Roberts joined).

This is what conservatives claim they want Justices to do. pic.twitter.com/sWDJ8D245N

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 15, 2020

* * *

In a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court (which now features two new justices appointed by President Trump) gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans individuals cannot legally be discriminated against by employers – meaning they can’t be fired, or not hired, simply for being LGBTQ.

In decisions in two separate cases, the court finally added LGBTQ people as a “protected class” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

HUGE: Supreme Court rules that federal civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers.

— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) June 15, 2020

The justices conceded that sexual orientation may not have been on the minds of anyone in Congress when the civil rights law was passed back in the wake of President John F Kennedy’s assassination. But the judges ruled that firing a male employee for dating men, but not a female employee for dating men, would represent illegal discrimination.

The ruling in the first case was a victory for Gerald Bostock, who was fired from a county job in Georgia after he joined a gay softball team, and the relatives of Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who was fired after he told a female client not to worry about being strapped tightly to him during a jump because he was “100% gay”. Zarda died before SCOTUS decided to accept the case.

In a separate case, SCOTUS also ruled that Title VII outlaws discrimination against transgender employees, upholding a lower court ruling that found Aimee Stephens was impermissibly fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home two weeks after coming out as trans to her boss.

Her former employer claimed she was fired for failing to follow the dress code. Like Zarda, Stephens did not live to see the case decided, having died on May 12 while in hospice care for kidney disease.

The cases mark the first notable rulings on gay rights since the retirement of former justice Anthony Kennedy. Notably, the Trump administration opposed the court’s ruling, reversing the stance from the Obama Administration. Chief Justice John Roberts also sided with the liberal justices, though this isn’t the first time he’s ruled on a gay rights issue.

BREAKING: US Supreme Court outlaws discrimination against LBGTQ workers, 6-3.

Kavanaugh dissents.

— Andy Slavitt @ 🏡 (@ASlavitt) June 15, 2020

The Gorsuch opinion was joined by John Roberts, as well as the 4 court liberals.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 15, 2020

In the Barstock case, justice Neil Gorsuch not only broke with the court’s conservatives (including fellow Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh), he wrote the majority opinion, suggesting that observers who claimed his more liberal record on LGBTQ rights might set him up to be the ‘new Kennedy’ on the Title VII rulings – in essence, an ideological swing voter that sides with the liberal justices in certain issues, like LGBTQ+ rights.