Perspectives: U.S. Supreme Court LGBTQ ruling has roots here.

Byline: Marshall H. Tanick

"An employer who fires an individual for beinggay or transgender defies the law."

Bostock v. Clayton County, et al (June 15, 2020)

[divider]

The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago prohibiting discrimination by employers against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals has roots deeply embedded in Minnesota.

The casetitledBostock v. Clayton County, et al.,No. 17-1618, 2020 WL 3146686 (June 15, 2020) wasa combination of three separate lawsuits. In its decision the high court held thatthe Federal anti-discrimination employment laws extend to the LGBTQ community. Although the trio of consolidated actions came from different jurisdictions (Georgia, New York and Michigan), the overlapping issue they raised stem from developments dating back 50 years in this state.

The joint lawsuits involved two gay men and one transsexual womanwho were fired from their respectivejobs as a social worker, skydiving instructor and funeral director because of their sexuality. They each sued for wrongful termination under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, a 1964 measure that bars discrimination in the workplace due to "sex" and a number of otherpersonal characteristics or features, such as race and religion. Two of them prevailed in preliminary rulings allowing their cases to proceed, whilethe other was thrown out of court.

The issue before the high court in each of the cases was whether the act covers only traditional male-female gender discrimination or applies more widely to disciplinary actions by employers attributable to the sexual characteristics of the affected employees.

Adverse advocacy

One side of the debate, advanced by advocates for the employees, was that themeasure should be construed broadly to effectuate its purpose of proscribing bias in the workplace unrelated to job performance.

They noted that societal views of sexuality have changed since the act went into effect two generations ago and that the law ought to keep up with social changes, much like the landmark "same-sex" marriage ruling five years ago inObergefell v. Hodges,516 U.S. 644 (2015) and prior groundbreaking decisions granting rights to same-sex couples like the invalidation of state sodomy laws for consenting adults in 2003 inLawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) overruling a contrary ruling 17 years earlier inBowers v. Hardwick and the allowance of tax benefits for married same-sex couples in 2013 inU.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S....