In a landmark decision, a federal appeals court has ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends protections to LGBT employees. This monumental ruling signifies that employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Civil Rights Act, enacted in 1964, originally banned discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” However, it did not explicitly mention protections for sexual orientation or gender identity. Over recent decades, courts have begun to interpret the Act as encompassing LGBT individuals.
Specifically, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has become the first federal appellate court to formally recognize that discrimination based on sexual orientation falls under Title VII, the portion of the Civil Rights Act addressing sex discrimination. This is particularly significant since, as of now, individuals can still legally be terminated for their sexual orientation in 28 states.
Notably, the 7th Circuit Court is generally viewed as conservative, with five of its eight judges appointed by Republican presidents. The 8-3 ruling is therefore seen as a remarkable shift towards inclusive protections. The case arose from a lawsuit by an Indiana teacher, Jessica Reed, who claimed that she was denied a full-time position at Ivy Tech Community College due to her sexual orientation. Following this ruling, Reed will have the opportunity to present her case in court.
Although this decision marks progress, the issue may ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Given the current GOP majority in Congress, amending the Civil Rights Act to explicitly include sexual orientation seems unlikely. Just last month, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Title VII does not address claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation, indicating that the 7th Circuit’s ruling may not be the final word on this issue.
While this ruling is a positive step forward for civil rights protections, it’s disheartening that, in 2017, there are still individuals advocating for the right to discriminate against others. Simply put, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right. As observed in the ruling, “Any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant—whether male or female—dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates a same-sex partner, is purely a reaction based on sex. This falls squarely within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination.”
For now, this ruling serves as a sweet victory for those striving for equality. If you’re interested in learning more about other aspects of family planning and home insemination, check out this informative post here. For those considering at-home insemination options, you can find quality products through reputable retailers like Make a Mom. Additionally, you can explore more resources at UCSF’s Center for Reproductive Health.
In summary, the recent ruling by the 7th Circuit Court marks a significant advancement for LGBT rights, affirming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides essential protections against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.