BREAKING: Victory 2nd Circuit! The court holds that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis

[riversedge]

I have not seen a headline about this yet but whow.

Link to tweet

Lambda Legal
?Verified account @LambdaLegal
2h2 hours ago

BREAKING: Victory in 2nd Circuit! The court holds that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This supports what we’ve been saying all along. Everyone deserves the right to be #OutAtWork, and no one should be fired for it. #LGBTQ
8 replies 304 retweets 547 likes


Lambda Legal
?Verified account @LambdaLegal
2h2 hours ago

"We now hold that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination 'because of ... sex,' ” in violation of Title VII ..."

Link to tweet

Read full opinion here: https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/ny_zarda_20180226_opinion …
1 reply 40 retweets 72 likes




Lambda Legal
?Verified account @LambdaLegal
1h1 hour ago

The case is Zarda v. Altitude Express, & it's A Big Deal, folks! Yet another circuit court joins in affirmation of this essential interpretation of #TitleVII: Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination!
1 reply 21 retweets 63 likes

Lambda Legal?Verified account @LambdaLegal

Reminder: In July, @TheJusticeDept filed a brief in this case arguing that #TitleVII does NOT prohibit "discrimination based on sexual orientation." The @USEEOC argued that actually, it does. #awkward

TY to the Second Circuit for making the right decision!
9:48 AM - 26 Feb 2018

Link to tweet

[mythology]

1. Excellent on two fronts

The first is the obvious, but it's also great that it will give Jeff Sessions a sad. He's tried to take away these protections.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I wonder if Sessions and friends activities actually precipitated this change?

They must be sooooooper pissed.

[riversedge]

4. Oh, I am sure he will appeal to the SC. That is a given.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

5. and if Faux Noise reports it, poor liddle Donny will also have sad (and a tantrum). n/t

[nycbos]

2. woo hoo

[hueymahl]

6. Great news! NT

[TheDebbieDee]

7. I don't want to rain on your parade, but

the ruling only means that your employer need only find a DIFFERENT reason to fire you. And in a "Right-to-work" state your employer doesn't need ANY reason to fire you...

[TomSlick]

11. As a lawyer in a "right-to-work" state,

the law is an employer can fire an employee for no reason but cannot fire for an improper reason. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee for filing a workers compensation claim. Neither can an employer decide s/he only wants white male employees and fire all the African-American women.

If a fired employee can prove s/he was filed in violation of Title VII, the "right-to-work" laws would not protect the employer. Of course, that proof would often be difficult to make.

The decision is a big deal because it is not at all clear that the Title VII prohibition against sex discrimination applies to sexual orientation. If there is a split among the Circuit Courts, the Supreme Court will eventually have to resolve the split. However, that does not mean the Supreme Court will take this case. The Supreme Court tends to take cases based on whether the facts support the result that at least four of the justices want.

The fact that the discharged employee lost his state law discrimination claims suggests that this would not be the best case for any four justices who would likely agree that Title VII applies to sexual orientation. I hope that when this case gets to the supremes, the facts are some better.

[Corvo Bianco]

8. Woooohooo!

[47of74]

9. Great news.

Of course I’m ready for the inevitable melt downs from the Reich.

[pangaia]

10. Continues to show how damn important these judicial positions are.

Right now, they are one of only a few things saving American human beings from even more hell.