Defining How America Protects ‘Sex’ in the Workplace

The Supreme Court will be discussing the treatment of LGBTQ individuals in the workplace as they hear three cases this session that specifically address queer issues. The court looked at two different cases on Tuesday, October 8: the cases of Aimee Stephens and Gerald Bostock.

The Supreme Court is discussing and will ultimately decide on the exact meaning of workplace discrimination when it pertains to protections based on “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Currently, only 21 states have protections against discrimination of a person based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, and the Supreme Court will decide if this will remain a state issue or become a federal protection. 

A U.S. solicitor stated Title VII’s “sex” is associated with male and female rights in the workplace, and that sexual orientation and gender identity are not part of the subject of ‘sex.’ They also argued the legislators did not consider ‘homosexuality’ when the laws were written into the Constitution. However, others discussed sexual orientation and gender identity, according to CNN, claiming it is a part of ‘sex’ because it holds a deeper meaning. Workplace discriminatory acts based on sexual orientation and gender identity are believed to be a form of sex discrimination.

Stephens’ case is in regard to her coming out as a trans person and the discrimination she faced during her transition. She informed her co-workers at the funeral home where she worked about her transition in a letter and vocally and was shortly thereafter fired from her job. She later sued the funeral home she was working at, and it has made its way up the court system.

Bostock’s case has made its way to the hill after he was fired from his county position in the state of Georgia after he joined a gay softball league. He is arguing that sexual orientation should be protected under the “sex” category, because being gay is ultimately about sexual identity in his view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated: “We can’t deny that homosexuals are being fired … merely because they are a suspect class to some.”

In theory, if it is ruled that discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex does not include sexual orientation and gender identity, then the removal of LGBTQ workers will multiply, which then defies the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

The act was mainly set in place to assess poverty during the 60s; rather than providing money or resources to the public, the EEO was meant to assist people in getting a job. Their approach was to rid the public of poverty through equipping people with the skills and tools for the employment world.

Not allowing protections for LGBTQ workers will put an end to the resources currently in  place to protect the rights of our community.