At least as it relates to a big employment case that could be coming down Supreme Court Boulevard in 2019. Continue reading
Will I sacrifice quality for quantity?
Since you’re not paying me anything to blog, you bet I will. Hopefully, you won’t see it that way. But, if feel otherwise, go jump in a lake I’m sorry. Continue reading
It’s right there in the statute.
Now, you won’t find the words “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” anywhere in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. But, starting this month, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is treating both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes.
“Speak, English, Eric!”
LGBT discrimination is against the law in all three states in the tri-state area — at least according to the state agencies that administer each law. Continue reading
Usually, after my kids go to bed is when I write my blog posts for the following day. Last night that didn’t happen. Instead, while putting my two boys to bed, I fell asleep on the spare bed in their room. #Parenting
So, I apologize for the tardy post today. Continue reading
Yesterday’s blog post highlighted the blistering dissent of Eleventh Circuit judge Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum, as she criticized her colleagues for passing on the opportunity to reconsider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Judge Rosenbaum’s opinion, Title VII does afford those protections based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the Court concluded that sex stereotyping violates Title VII. (It follows that Title VII precludes discrimination based on sexual orientation because of the failure to conform to the gender-based stereotype of loving someone of the opposite sex. Continue reading
The issue this case raises—whether Title VII protects gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination because their sexual preferences do not conform to their employers’ views of whom individuals of their respective genders should love—is indisputably en-banc-worthy…. I cannot explain why a majority of our Court is content to rely on the precedential equivalent of an Edsel with a missing engine, when it comes to an issue that affects so many people.
Most of you have probably heard of the case that went to the Supreme Court involving a Colorado baker who would customize a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because he believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. The case is called Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Today, you’ll read headlines like, “Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple” or “Supreme Court Hands Win To Baker Who Refused Service To Gay Couple”
But, don’t get it twisted. Continue reading