In short, a firm cannot create an otherwise legal pretext from discrimination "on the basis of sex," and "on the basis of sex" now expressly includes an applicant/employee's sexual orientation or trans status.
The more I encounter high court judgements, the more I think all nine of them just pick whatever they feel like, and that the opinions and defences are just post-hoc rationalisations. Like, judicial rulings exist on a huge number of things, often overlapping, and in practice precedents exist for both sides of a decision, so any view can be reasonably defended.
Actually from everything I've heard, Gorsuch wasn't really a bad pick, he was conservative but rather moderate as I understand and this was before trump would really start going nuts with demanding loyalty and such.
The biggest issue with Gorsuch politically was that McConnell broke every semblance of protocol to hold the seat open for Trump to fill. Make no mistake, Gorsuch is more conservative than Scalia, the justice he replaced and, to be really blunt, there's a lot of lower-court precedent that has generally protected trans people from employment discrimination on the same basis that hadn't been extended to sexual orientation until this opinion.
By my understanding, "conservative" normally more refers to attitudes in Constitutional assessment rather than political leaning. Specifically, conservatives like to stick to what they thought the framers of the consitution would have thought, where liberals tend to use interpretations more in line with modern re-evaluation. My understanding of Gorsuch is that he very much followed that arch-conservative (in judicial terms), Antonin Scalia. Of course, the point being that arch-conservatives are more likely to view Roe v. Wade as a particularly objectionable legal creation that would never have passed muster with conservative Constitutional interpretation.
Gorsuch was also selected because he's a corporatist who opposes organized labor. That's his main wheelhouse. It just happens that anti-queer discrimination isn't as profitable as it once was, so there's not much need to keep doing it from the perspective of a business ledger.
Pretty much, anyone that poo-poohs legal realism has either taken one too many sips of the Kool-aid or is trying to sell the illusion courts aren't fundamentally partisan. Even if partisanship along which lines can be obscure by design at times, like for example Kelo.
Yeah, but once Obama nominated him, the Republicans couldn't. Because them's the rules.
Ted Cruz is apparently mad about it. Then again, he's the turd sandwich who said that the Gay Marriage SCOTUS case was one of the "darkest days in American History". Darker then 9/11, Pearl Harbor or when the guy who heavily implied Cruz's dad helped assassinate JFK got elected president. Oh, and also Benghazi, because that was the Rightees big fucking obsession for a couple years.
I would hazard a guess that it would not, as the military would either be exempt from Title VII or claim to have a rationale for making an exception.
The military cannot deny someone by their race, religion or sex, so they can still be sued I would think.
suethemilitary.com
Wouldn't this actually work against transfolk on insurance coverage? I mean, if cis women and trans women need to be supplied the same coverage, and you don't cover breast implants for cis women...
USA