The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disallows discrimination related to sexual and gender identity. The legislative text of section B VII prohibits gender-based infrigment in employment (Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1964). However, it still allows for sexual preferences or gender identity condemnation of an employee. Therefore, the court decided to revise the legal text and identify if it can be applied to the prohibition of orientation-based prejudices in the workplace. This title applies to an organization with 15 or more workers. Hence, it is vital to investigate why this ruling was established and why it was needed to ensure positive changes in society.
I agree with the court’s decision due to several factors related to the legal implications. Primarily, it is necessary to understand the reasons for the title’s importance in modern society. The majority of employees across the country face severe discrimination from their colleagues or bosses, which in most cases leads to termination or voluntary dismissal. For instance, in 2018, George Bostock, a worker from Clayton County, was fired due to his participation in a gay softball game that the community members found unbecoming (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). Nevertheless, Mr. Bostock could not sue them for identity-based discrimination since Title VII did not prohibit it.
Yet, as the legislation progress, there is a specific need for some alteration in law. For example, in the case of skydiving instructor Donald Zarda, the court allowed the proceedings because the representatives found that Zarda’s employer violated Title VII by terminating him because of his sexual preferences (Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, 2020). At the R. G. & G. R. Harris funeral home, Aimee Stevens, a male, worked as a funeral director for six years, but she later introduced herself as a woman, which led to further dismissal (R.G. & G.R., 2020). As a result, the Sixth Circuit ruled that legal decisions should be made to restrict any kind of sex-based.
The policy was highly demanded because of the number of related cases that have been common in the recent decade. More and more individuals started to complain about the termination due to their sexual identity, which was condemned by either co-workers or employers. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision that since June 15, 2020, 25 states are eligible for this law. Other states have already had local policies protecting those who face gender-based prejudices. For preserving the fairness of the organization, it is vital to sustain the diversity of personnel and treat each person as a professional.
In conclusion, it may be stated that the policy implemented was probably one of the most critical changes in the Civil Rights Act. Assuming that the law altered, people’s minds have also changed. If such situations recur, penalties may be added to Section VII since no person may be discriminated on the basis of their sexual status. The alteration is expected to have far-reaching implications in the future, yet, it will save employees from firing.
References
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. (2020).
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. (2020).
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Publ. L. No 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). Web.
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. (2020).