Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Employers’ and government’s briefs due today in Title VII LGBT employment discrimination cases at SCOTUS

Discrimination Transgender Rights

Briefs are due today for the employers arguing that Title VII doesn’t include protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity based on the language “because of such individual’s… sex” in the law.

The briefs in the sexual orientation cases, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express v. Zarda can be found here.

The briefs in the gender identity case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC can be found here. Note that the DOJ is arguing for the Trump administration that Title VII doesn’t include gender identity discrimination. No EEOC lawyers joined their brief.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

8 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. ianbirmingham  |  August 17, 2019 at 4:05 am

    The Reality-Defying Shame of Log Cabin Republicans Who Endorse Trump

    Reaching the end of this odd, upside-down piece of writing in the Washington Post, the question in the reader’s mind becomes less “why are you doing this?,” than “how on earth did you get to this point as LGBTQ people?” In this, the 50th anniversary year of the Stonewall Riots, what happened to your gay pride?

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-reality-defying

  • 2. VIRick  |  August 17, 2019 at 2:25 pm

    Baja California: New Congress, Marriage Equality Bill to Be Introduced

    Per Rex Wockner‏:

    At least 17 of the 25 members of the newly-elected and recently-reconfigured Baja California state congress support marriage equality – for starters, the entire 17-member Morena caucus. A bill will be introduced in the "Equality Between Women, Men, and Youth Committee." Passage is likely.

    In June 2019, statewide elections took place in both Baja California and Tamaulipas. In Baja California, Morena absolutely trounced PAN which had previously held a stranglehold on the congress. In the 2016-19 congress, we only had 2 Morena, 1 PT, 1 PRD, 1 MC, and 2 local party/independents (7 in total). In stark counter-point, the opposition comprised of 13 PAN and 5 PRI (18 in total). For the 2019-21 congress, commencing from 1 August, those numbers have now totally reversed themselves, with Morena holding 13 seats, and pro-marriage-equality coalition members 6 more.

    Note: Wikipedia still needs to up-date its party affiliation listings for the Mexican state congresses to reflect the results of these two recent statewide elections, here:
    . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_sta

    Further note: Passage of marriage equality legislation in Baja California will not increase our state count. Instead, it will eliminate the need for the CEDH and the various civil registries to further engage in their creative work-around, complying with the Supreme Court of Justice ruling while ignoring their own out-dated state law. However, since the municipality of Mexicali refuses to abide by the statewide directive of November 2017 authorizing said work-around, a positive change in state law will finally force Mexicali to comply, thus benefiting the last 30% of the state's population.

    Baja California: Congress in Favor of Equal Marriage: Deputy Geraldo

    Baja California: Congreso a Favor de Matrimonio Igualitario: Diputada Geraldo

    Todavía no hay una fecha tentativa para presentar la iniciativa sobre el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. El matrimonio igualitario es una potencial realidad con el visto bueno de los 17 diputados de la bancada morenista del congreso del estado, reveló la legisladora Araceli Geraldo Núñez (Morena).

    Debido al proceso de la transición (al congreso nuevo), no se ha instalado la totalidad de las comisiones del poder legislativo, por lo que todavía no hay una fecha tentativa para presentar la iniciativa sobre el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. La comisión encargada de revisar el proyecto, y de subirlo a pleno, es la de Igualdad entre Mujeres, Hombres y Juventud, la cual será presidida por Julia Andrea González Quiroz (Morena), comentó la diputada.
    https://www.elimparcial.com/mexicali/mexicali/Con

    There is still no tentative date to present the initiative on same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is a potential reality with the approval of the 17 state congress deputies of the Morena caucus, said legislator Araceli Geraldo Núñez (Morena).

    Due to the transition process (to the new congress), the totality of the legislative committees have not yet been installed, so there is still no tentative date for presenting the initiative on same-sex marriage. The committee responsible for reviewing the project, and sending it on to the full congress, is that of the "Equality Between Women, Men, and Youth Committee," one which will be chaired by Julia Andrea González Quiroz (Morena), the deputy commented.

  • 3. VIRick  |  August 17, 2019 at 6:27 pm

    Baja California Congress: Its Party Affiliations and the Prospects for Marriage Equality

    Luego de la jornada electoral llevada a cabo ayer en nuestro estado, el 2 de junio 2019, donde Morena se llevó “carro completo” en todas las candidaturas, te damos a conocer cómo quedaría conformada la XXIII Legislatura que estará en el cargo desde el primero de agosto de 2019 hasta el 2021.

    Recordando que 17 escaños serán ocupados por los diputados electos por mayoría (en cada uno de los 17 distritos) y 8 por plurinominales, el Congreso del estado de Baja California quedaría representado de la siguiente forma:
    https://psn.si/congreso-de-baja-california/2019/0

    After the 2 June 2019 election held yesterday in our state, where Morena took a “clean sweep” with all of its candidates, we are announcing how the XXIII Legislature will be composed that is to be in office from 1 August 2019 until 2021.

    Recalling that 17 seats will be occupied by deputies elected by the majority (in each of the 17 districts) and 8 by proportional representation, the Baja California State Congress will be composed as follows:

    Pro-marriage-equality, 13 Morena, 3 PT, 2 PRD, 1 MC (19 total)

    Unknown local parties: 1 Transformemos, 1 PBC (2 total)

    Opposition: 2 PAN, 1 PRI, 1 Verde (4 total)

    Morena/PT won all 5 district seats in Mexicali, 7 more in Tijuana, plus Rosarito, and the 2 in Ensenada (15 of 17 districts).

    For 2019-21, in Tamaulipas, the party affiliations of the members of 36-seat state congress are explained here:
    https://www.milenio.com/politica/congreso-tamauli

    Here, our side improved, but not enough for a majority: 10 Morena, 1 MC (11 total).

    The opposition will be composed of: 22 PAN, 3 PRI (25 total).

    In the previous congress, just ended, we only had 1 Morena and 1 MC (2 total).

    In stiff opposition, there were 20 PAN, 11 PRI, 1 Verde, and 2 Nueva Alianza (34 total).

  • 4. ianbirmingham  |  August 18, 2019 at 11:38 am

    Palestinian Authority Bans LGBTQ Activities In West Bank

    The Palestinian Authority has banned members of the Palestinian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community from carrying out any activities in the West Bank.

    The ban came after the grassroots group Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society, (Arabic for the bow), which engages and supports Palestinians who identify as LGBTQ, was planning to hold a gathering for its members in Nablus at the end of this month. The group operates both in the West Bank and among Arab-Israelis. Al-Qaws is a civil society organization established in 2001 with the goal of “fighting for vibrant Palestinian cultural and social change, building LGBTQ communities and promoting new ideas about the role of gender and sexual diversity in political activism, civil society institutions, media, and everyday life.” The group has offices only in east Jerusalem and Haifa.

    Explaining the decision to ban the LGBTQ group from operating in PA-controlled areas, Luay Zreikat, spokesperson for the PA Police, said that such activities are “harmful to the higher values and ideals of Palestinian society.” Zreikat said that the group’s activities were completely “unrelated to religions and Palestinian traditions and customs, especially in the city of Nablus.” He accused unnamed “dubious parties” of working to “create discord and harm civic peace in Palestinian society.” The PA police will chase those behind the LGBTQ group and see to it that they are brought to trial once they are arrested, Zreikat warned. He further appealed to Palestinians to report to the police about any person connected to the group.

    A member of Al-Qaws said that since the police announcement, he and his friends have received hundreds of threats and hate messages from Palestinians, especially through Facebook. “The attack on us is unprecedented,” he told The Jerusalem Post. “They are calling us traitors and corrupt people and many are calling for our execution. We are afraid for our lives.”

    https://outline.com/yvxvwa

    https://jpost.com/Middle-East/PA-bans-LGBT-activi

  • 5. VIRick  |  August 18, 2019 at 3:22 pm

    Wisconsin: State Regulation Barring Medicaid Payments for Gender Dysphoria Ruled Discrimintory

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 16 August 2019, in "Flack v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health Services," the federal class-action challenge to a state regulation that prohibits Medicaid beneficiaries from obtaining medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria, Judge Conley has granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the exclusion.

    The Opinion and Order is linked here:
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/318-cv-00309-217/

    IT IS ORDERED that:
    1) Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing the Challenged Exclusion (Wis. Admin. Code §§ DHS 107.03(23)-(24), 107.10(4)(p)) against the named plaintiffs and other members of the class.

    2) The parties may have fourteen (14) days to meet and confer on the scope of this and any other permanent relief, at which point they are to submit a joint, proposed injunction or competing proposals.

  • 6. VIRick  |  August 19, 2019 at 4:59 pm

    Yucatán: Marriage Equality Issue Heads to Court

    Per Enrique Torre Molina:‏

    Nos encanta hablar de Yucatán como un estado seguro, pero no hay seguridad cuando hay este nivel de homofobia institucional. Hoy, el 19 de agosto 2019, el Colectivo PTF Yucatán anunció la demanda contra el Congreso de Yucatán por votar ilegalmente contra el matrimonio igualitario.
    https://twitter.com/ETorreMolina/status/116356672

    It pleases us to talk about Yucatán as a safe state, but there is no security when there is this level of institutional homophobia. Today, 19 August 2019, the collective, PTF Yucatán, announced their lawsuit against the Yucatán Congress for illegally voting against marriage equality.

    Per "Sumario Yucatán:"‏

    Asociaciones civiles se unieron para presentar dos amparos en contra del Congreso de Yucatán por votar en forma secreta el matrimonio igualitario. Si ganan, se deberá votar otra vez.
    https://twitter.com/sumario_yucatan

    Civil associations joined together to present two amparos against the Yucatán Congress for voting in secret on the marriage equality issue. If they are successful, it must be voted upon again.

    Less than an hour later, we have this response from neighboring Quintana Roo, reminding all and sundry that they have been happily marrying same-sex couples in their state since 2012, and in fact, have become one of the premier same-sex wedding/honeymoon destinations in Mexico.

    Per "Realidades Quintana Roo:"‏

    El Registro Civil del gobierno de solidaridad (de Quintana Roo) realiza matrimonio igualitario como prueba tangible de la inclusión y el respeto a la diversidad sexual.
    https://twitter.com/RealidadesQRoo

    The Civil Registry of the solidarity government (of Quintana Roo) performs equal marriages as tangible proof of inclusion and respect for sexual diversity.

  • 7. VIRick  |  August 19, 2019 at 5:29 pm

    El Salvador: Details about Same-Sex Marriage Cases Admitted to Constitutional Court

    Per Colectivo Normal‏ (the party which filed case 149-2016):

    Comunicado del Colectivo Normal, con relación a la demanda admitida el 9 de agosto de 2019, acumulando también el proceso 184-2016 que versa sobre la misma temática:

    En 2016, el Colectivo Normal interpuso ante la Sala de lo Constitucional una "Demanda de Inconstitucionalidad" elaborada por Gabriel Gasteazoro bajo la referencia 149–2016. El proceso de inconstitucionalidad permaneció archivado tres años, durante los cuales, según declaraciones públicas de ex magistrados de la Sala, no se había analizado su admisibilidad por las polémicas que conlleva.

    El 9 de agosto de 2019, la Sala de lo Constitucional hizo pública la admisión de la demanda, acumulando también el proceso 184–2016 que versa sobre la misma temática. En estas circunstancias, el Colectivo Normal quiere compartir los siguientes mensajes:

    1. Reconocemos el profesionalismo y la valentía de la actual Sala de lo Constitucional y sus cinco integrantes por admitir con cinco votos las demandas 149–2016 y 184–2016.

    2. Invitamos a la sociedad en general a tener una discusión de altura, fundamentada en el Derecho y la Ética, y no en moralismos o creencias personales, en consecuencia, al hecho jurídico de que vivimos en un Estado laico, tal como lo enfatizó la Sala de lo Constitucional en su comunicado del 29 de julio de 2019.

    3. Enfatizamos la urgencia de brindar la protección civil y legal a las personas LGBTI que exponemos en la demanda presentada, lo cual implica regular jurídicamente el Matrimonio para parejas conformadas por personas del mismo sexo.

    4. Exhortamos a los magistrados y magistradas de la Sala a mantener el compromiso de emitir una sentencia apegada al derecho, con base en los artículos 1, 2, 3, y 144 de la Constitución, los cuales expresan que la finalidad del Estado es la persona humana, y que por ende, se deberán garantizar los derechos a la intimidad personal y familiar, la libertad individual, el principio de no discriminación, y el respeto a los Tratados Internacionales de Derechos Humanos ratificados por El Salvador.

    5. En consecuencia, al punto anterior, exigimos tener como base la Opinión Consultiva 24/17 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) donde menciona que los artículos 11.2 y 17 de la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos protege el vínculo familiar de parejas del mismo sexo y que los Estados parte deben resguardar los derechos que de ella deriven. Además, que se deben reconocer por los Estados partes de la Convención las mismas instituciones, mismos nombres, y mismos derechos a las uniones de parejas del mismo sexo.
    https://colectivonormal.com/comunicado-sobre-la-a

    (to continue in English)

  • 8. VIRick  |  August 19, 2019 at 5:38 pm

    (continued in English)
    El Salvador: Details about Same-Sex Marriage Cases Admitted to Constitutional Court

    Per Colectivo Normal (the party which filed case 149-2016):

    Communiqué of the Colectivo Normal, in relation to our lawsuit admitted on 9 August 2019, as well as to case 184-2016 which deals with the same subject:

    In 2016, the Colectivo Normal filed a "Demand for Unconstitutionality" with the Constitutional Chamber drawn up by Gabriel Gasteazoro under reference 149-2016. The unconstitutionality case remained on file for three years, during which, according to public statements by former justices of the Chamber, their admissibility had not been analyzed due to the controversies involved.

    On 9 August 2019, the Constitutional Chamber made the admission of our application public, also adding in case 184-2016 which deals with the same subject. Under these circumstances, the Colectivo Normal wants to share the following messages:

    1. We recognize the professionalism and courage of the current Constitutional Chamber and its five members for admitting lawsuits 149-2016 and 184-2016 with all five votes.

    2. We invite society in general to have a high-level discussion, based on Law and Ethics, and not on morals or personal beliefs, and consequently, on the legal fact that we live in a secular State, as emphasized by the Constitutional Chamber in its statement of 29 July 2019.

    3. We emphasize the urgency of providing civil and legal protections for LGBTI persons as expressed in the lawsuit filed, one which implies legally regulating marriage for couples comprised of the same sex.

    4. We urge the justices of the Chamber to maintain the commitment to issue a ruling attached to law, based on articles 1, 2, 3, and 144 of the Constitution, which state that the purpose of the State is the human person, and therefore to that end, rights to personal and family privacy, individual freedom, the principle of non-discrimination, and respect for the International Human Rights Treaties ratified by El Salvador, must be guaranteed.

    5. Consequently, to the previous point, we demand to have as a basis the Advisory Opinion 24/17 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CIDH), which mentions that Articles 11.2 and 17 of the American Convention on Human Rights protect the family bond of same-sex couples and that States parties must safeguard the rights derived therefrom. In addition, the same institutions, same names (terms), and same rights to unions by same-sex couples must be recognized by the States parties to the Convention.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!