{"id":2376,"date":"2017-07-31T12:18:55","date_gmt":"2017-07-31T16:18:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/?p=2376"},"modified":"2019-12-04T15:55:48","modified_gmt":"2019-12-04T15:55:48","slug":"trumps-doj-v-title-vii-and-sexual-orientation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/trumps-doj-v-title-vii-and-sexual-orientation\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s DOJ v. TITLE VII and Sexual Orientation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Trump\u2019s DOJ v. TITLE VII and Sexual Orientation
\nWASHINGTON, D.C.<\/strong> – The Trump administration has taken a strong stance with regard to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whether it protects sexual orientation discrimination. In the eyes of the current administration, it does not. In an amicus brief \u2013 an unrequested legal brief filed in the appellate court by a non-party \u2013 on Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.<\/em>, a Title VII case out of the Eastern District of New York,\u00a0\u00a0 Chad Readler and Tom Wheeler, the Acting Assistant Attorneys General, made an official statement that Trump\u2019s Department of Justice does not believe that Title VII covers sexual orientation, despite the recent Court Decisions out of the 7th <\/sup>Federal Judicial District in which famed Jurists, The Honorable Richard Posner, made clear that Title VII does prohibit private employers from discriminating against an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In their unrequested brief, Trump\u2019s DOJ starts off hot, stating that \u201csex\u201d is not defined by Title VII, and adopting Judge Sykes’s meaning in Hively v. Ivey Tech Community College of Indiana<\/em>\u00a0in which Judge Sykes defined \u201csex\u201d as biologically male <\/em>o female. <\/em>They go on to make clear that under Title VII, \u201cdiscrimination\u201d requires a showing that an employer has treated \u201csimilarly situated employees\u201d of different sexes unequally. They claim the central question to the inquiry is whether an employer has treated \u201csome people less favorably than others because of their sex.\u201d Trump\u2019s DOJ further attacked leading jurisprudence with regard to discrimination based on sexual orientation.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s DOJ also disagreed with Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins<\/em>, in which the Court ruled that Title VII prohibited an employer from discriminating against an employee because that employee failed to conform to traditional gender roles. Trump\u2019s DOJ insists that Title VII does not forbid employment practices that take in account the sex of employees. As an example, Trump\u2019s DOJ reminds the court that employers maintaining gender specific-bathrooms is legal under Title VII.<\/p>\n

While the Trump DOJ held fast to classic right-wing stances backed by legal citation, they failed to recognize that the case they relied on as their legal footing would have been ruled against them. In Hively<\/em>, Judge Wood penned the opinion of the Court. The first paragraph of Judge Wood\u2019s opinion reads:
\n\u201cFor many years\u2019 courts of appeals of this country understood prohibition against sex discrimination to exclude discrimination on the basis of a person\u2019s sexual orientation. The Supreme Court, however, has never spoken to that question\u2026We have done so, and we conclude today that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s opinion is not dispositive of the issue, it is among the first Court opinions to endorse Title VII\u2019s prohibition sexual orientation discrimination, a position that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (\u201cEEOC\u201d) has routinely maintained. More importantly, Judge Wood\u2019s opinion shows that the judges around the country are ready to usher in a new era of tolerance.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s DOJ\u2019s brief runs directly contrary to the President\u2019s very public stance on LGBT rights<\/a>. However, in the Trump administration, the old quarterback adage of \u201chave a short memory\u201d is more of a policy position, as this administration routinely forgets its previous stances on important issues and adopts any position that seems to be politically expedient and pleasing to the far right-wing members of the GOP who have hijacked the party of Reagan.<\/p>\n

The skilled New York City sexual harassment attorneys at the Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, have years of experience litigating claims of sexual orientation discrimination. If you feel you have been discriminated against on the basis of your sexual orientation, please give our talented attorneys a call at 800-807-2209 for a free consultation.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Trump\u2019s DOJ v. TITLE VII and Sexual Orientation WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Trump administration has taken a strong stance with regard to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whether it protects sexual orientation discrimination. In the eyes of the current administration, it does not. In an amicus brief \u2013 an unrequested … Continue reading “Trump\u2019s DOJ v. TITLE VII and Sexual Orientation”<\/span><\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5783,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[29,4,800,11,14],"tags":[920,921,922,919,923,924,904,925,926],"class_list":["post-2376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-employment-discrimination","category-employment-law","category-gender-discrimination","category-philadelphia-lawyer","category-sexual-harassment","tag-chad-readler","tag-doj","tag-judge-sykes","tag-president","tag-president-trump","tag-richard-posner","tag-title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964","tag-tom-wheeler","tag-trump"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2376\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5783"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}