Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bostock v. Clayton County (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil Rights Act (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- First Amendment (1)
-
- Free exercise of religion (1)
- Gender non-conforming behavior (1)
- Homosexual (1)
- Intersex (1)
- LGBT (1)
- LGBTQ (1)
- LGBTQ+ (1)
- LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Same-sex relationships (1)
- Sex trait discrimination (1)
- State courts (1)
- Title VII (1)
- Transgender (1)
- U.S. Supreme Court (1)
- Workplace discrimination (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry
Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry
Washington Law Review
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment on account of sex. Courts have historically failed to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ people. However, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County changed this. Bostock explicitly extended Title VII’s protections against workplace discrimination to “homosexual” and “transgender” people, reasoning that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being gay or transgender without taking the employee’s sex into account. While Bostock is a win for LGBTQ+ rights, the opinion leaves several questions unanswered. The reasoning in …
Queer And Convincing: Reviewing Freedom Of Religion And Lgbtq+ Protections Post-Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Arianna Nord
Queer And Convincing: Reviewing Freedom Of Religion And Lgbtq+ Protections Post-Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Arianna Nord
Washington Law Review
Recent increases in LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws have generated new conversations in the free exercise of religion debate. While federal courts have been wrestling with claims brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment since the nineteenth century, city and state efforts to codify legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in the mid-twentieth century birthed novel challenges. Private individuals who do not condone intimate same-sex relationships and/or gender non-conforming behavior, on religious grounds seek greater legal protection for the ability to refuse to offer goods and services to LGBTQ+ persons. Federal and state courts must determine how to resolve these …