Experienced Rochester Gender Identity Discrimination Lawyer Protecting The Rights of LGBTQ Employees In New York
Bringing the hallucinations of lesser courts and the general public into clarity within the realm of justice has always been the portfolio of the Supreme Court for eons. In furtherance of this mandate, the Supreme Court swung the pendulum of justice with its judgment in a landmark 6-3 ruling dated 15th of June, 2020. Keep reading to learn more, and if you’ve been a victim of gender identity discrimination in the workplace, contact us today to arrange a confidential consultation with Rochester employment attorney Michelle Cimino.
The ruling of the apex court, in this case, reflected the climate of public opinion as well as a competent assessment of both sides of the ideological divide when considering a case of gender identity discrimination. In this ruling, the justices held that the job security of gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964, this provision expressly prohibits discriminatory behavior of employers against employees based on color religion, national origin, race, as well as sex.
The supreme court pronouncement, entailing two gay right cases from Georgia and New York (Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., No. 17-1618, and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623.) and another case involving a transgender from Michigan, pronounced the employee protection of LGBT individuals valid and operational under Federal law.
The rationale for this decision relied on the definition of “sex,” as stipulated under “Title VII.” The court agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments that acts of discrimination against gay and transgender workers were solely on grounds of their sex.
In Justice Gorsuch’s words:
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of different sex…Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
After careful consideration of the case before the court, the learned silk (Neil Gorsuch) went on to state thus:
“An employer who fires an individual mainly for being gay or transgender defies the law…By discriminating against homosexuals, the employer intentionally penalizes men for being attracted to men and women for being attracted to women. By discriminating against transgender persons, the employer unavoidably discriminates against persons with one sex identified at birth and another today.”
The trick here is,
Since discrimination against employees based on their gender in the workplace is deemed illegal under federal law (gender discrimination), then the discrimination against people who have identified to be of a particular gender should be equally illegal (gender identity discrimination). This will be the case as one is just an offshoot of another, and they are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Prior to this judicial pronouncement, incidences of workplace bias against transgender and gay employees have been one too many as 28 states across the country lacked proper regulatory apparatus to confront issues bothering on gender identity discrimination.
Over time, Gay rights activists had even argued that actualization of their goals to end LGBT employment discrimination in the workplace is considered a more feasible goal than the legalization of same-sex marriages. Albeit surprisingly, while the legalization of same-sex marriage has been achieved since 2015, an end to gender identity discriminatory bias in workplaces throughout the U.S was unachievable until the afore-mentioned landmark ruling.
One major spin-off from this epoch-making decision is that it will give people who have claimed to be discriminated against in the workplace based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, the chance to file lawsuits against their employer. This will happen in a similar manner to which people who are alleged victims of race and sex discrimination may. The plaintiff instituting the action may likely bring forward their case and evidence to prove their claim, and the employers taking on the role of the defendant will put up a defence against such claims.
Cases involving gender identity discrimination towards employees in this day and age might come as a rude shock to some.
But here’s what is even more shocking:
The majority of judges on the panel that sat on that landmark ruling were of a conservative extraction.
This shows that LGBT proponents can engage their antagonists on their rhetorical turf and reinforce the idea that every human being should be treated with dignity and respect. Though profoundly American, it is the acid test of progressiveness that countries around the world must strive to adopt.
Contact Gender Identity Discrimination Lawyer Michelle Cimino Today!
In the modern era, you would expect that cases of gender discrimination (if any) are few and far between, but as the world would have it, this is not yet the case.
The ongoing struggle to achieve sanity in human society and achieve social justice for people who have been wrongfully deprived of opportunities, jobs, entitlements due to their gender is an ongoing one and a collective struggle. It is one we have never shied away from; it is one we have always had an overwhelming appetite for.
While the ruling may not have put to bed other issues bothering on LGBT rights, you can always rest easy in the knowledge that if you or any of your friends or loved one has been a victim of gender identity discrimination by an employer, whether in Rochester, NY or anywhere else in the country, you should reach out to us today.
We can protect your now-legally-recognized right against discrimination and get you the damages/compensation/entitlement you so deserve.
Contact us today, we are here to help.