Transcription
TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENTS IN WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE ONE OF THE MOST SEQUENTIAL AND MOST-WATCHED CASES OF THE TERM.
QUESTION, DOES FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO FIRE PEOPLE SOLELY FOR THE INFRACTION OF BEING GAY, LESBIAN, OR TRANSGENDER?
IT IS CLEARLY AGAINST THE LAW TO FIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT MADE THAT ILLEGAL. YOU CAN’T TELL A HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY TEACHER HE IS FIRED BECAUSE OF A MAN OR TELL A FEMALE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE, BUT WE WANT A MAN IN THIS JOB. CAN’T DO IT.
RIGHT NOW IT’S AN OPEN QUESTION AS TO WHETHER YOU CAN DO THAT TO GAY, LESBIAN, AND TRANSFOLK FOLK TODAY. IN ORAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF GAY, LESSBIAN AND OTHERS ARGUED THAT PROTECTIONS AGAINST SEX DISCRIMINATION MUST LOGICALLY PROTECT DISCRIMINATIONS FROM LBGT DISCRIMINATION.
AND THE TRUMP DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAYING THAT FEDERAL LAW SAYS IT’S COMPLETELY FINE TO FIRE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY’RE GAY, LESBIAN, OR TRANSGENDER. THAT FEDERAL LAW HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT.
JOINING ME TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THIS ONE THAT LEGALIZED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, ON THE TEAM THAT PRESENTED ORAL ARGUMENTS TODAY. IT’S GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME, CHRIS.
>> MAYBE START WITH, YOU REPRESENT ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS, AMY STEVENS.
>> AMY STEVENS WAS A VALUED EMPLOYEE. SHE WORKED FOR SIX YEARS AS A FUNERAL DIRECTOR AND AN EMBALMER AT A FUNERAL HOME IN MICHIGAN. AFTER THAT TIME, AMY REALIZED, SHE COULD NO LONGER HIDE WHO SHE WAS. SHE HAD KNOWN SINCE SHE WAS A YOUNG GIRL THAT SHE’S A WOMAN AND SHELY CRAFTING A LETTER TO HER BOSS THAT SHE IS, IN FACT, A TRANSGENDER WOMAN AND SHE WOULD BE RETURNING TO WORK AFTER VACATION AS HER TRUE SELF, AMY. AND AFTER HER BOSS RECEIVED THAT BOSS, TWO WEEKS LATER WAS FIRED. THE REASON, BECAUSE THE PERSON HE BELIEVED TO BE A MAN, WAS IN FACT A TRANSGENDER WOMAN.
>> THE GOVERNMENT’S ARGUMENT TODAY IS THAT THAT’S FINE. WHATEVER YOU THINK ABOUT IT PERSONALLY, THAT FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND PARTICULARLY PROTECTIONS AGAINST SEX DISCRIMINATION AT WORK SIMPLY DON’T APPLY TO AMY OR DON’T APPLY TO FOLKS THAT TELL THEIR BOSSES THEY’RE GAY ANDLESS BEAN AND GET FIRED FOR IT.
>> THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S POSITION IN THIS CASE IS SO SHOCKING FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. THE FIRST IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY FILED AMY’S CASE UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. IT WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT FILED THIS LAWSUIT ON AMY’S BEHALF. NOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SWITCHING SIDES AND THROWING AMY UNDER THE BUS --
>> SO DOJ WAS FILING THE LAWSUIT ON AMY’S BEHALF, SAYING THAT THE FEDERAL LAW DOESN’T ALLOW YOU TO DO THIS, AND THEN TRUMP CAME IN AND SWITCHED THE SIDES OF THE DOJ?
>> EXACTLY. THE DOJ AND THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AGREED THAT TITLE VII PROTECTS WORKERS WHO ARE FIRED SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY’RE TRANSGENDER. NOW THEY’VE SWITCHED SIDES, ESSENTIALLY MAKING A SERIES OF ARGUMENTS THAT DID NOT WORK VERY WELL TODAY.
SO THEIR FIRST ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY, IT’S FINE IF WE FIRE TRANSGENDER WOMEN, AS LONG AS WE ALSO FIRE TRANSGENDER MEN. SOMEHOW THEY SAID --
>> THIS IS THEIR EQUALITY --
>> THE EQUALITY IDEA, LIKE, YOU CAN’T DISCRIMINATE, BUT YOU CAN FIRE THEM ALL.
>> YES, EXACTLY. ANY KINDERGARTNER CAN TELL YOU, TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT. IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE TRANSGENDER, IT’S INHERENTLY BASED ON THE PERSON’S SEX. THE VERY DEFINITION OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE TRANSGENDER IS SOMEONE WHOSE GENDER IDENTITY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SEX THEY WERE ASSIGNED AT BIRTH. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO FIRE SOMEONE AS BEING TRANSGENDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR SEX.
>> THERE’S A CASE IN 1989, WITH PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPER, WHICH IS A REALLY INTERESTING CASE, IN WHICH A FEMALE EMPLOYEE IS TOLD TO FEMME IT UP. LIKE, BASICALLY, YOU SHOULD WEAR LIPSTICK AND SKIRTS AND LIKE ACT MORE FEMININE OR YOU’LL BE FIRED. AND SHE TAKES THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. WHAT DOES THE SUPREME COURT SAY ABOUT THAT BACK IN ’89?
>> IN ’89, YOU’RE SORT OF PANT MINING IT UP, BUT THE ACTUAL WORDS TOLD TO ANN HOPKINS, SHE WAS TOLD TO WALK MORE FEMININELY, TALK MORE FEMME LIN, AND TAKE A COURSE IN CHARM SCHOOL. WHICH IS UNTHINKABLE THAT AN EMPLOYER WOULD TAKE THAT ARGUMENT TO COURT AND SAY, WHAT WE DID HERE IS PERFECTLY FINE. AND THE EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE WAS, LOOK, IT WASN’T THE FACT THAT ANN HOPKINS WAS A WOMAN, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THAT SHE WAS THE WRONG KIND OF WOMAN. IT’S NOT HER SEX, IT’S THESE OTHER TRAITS. AND WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN 1989 IS THAT THOSE TRAITS GO TO THE VERY HEART ABOUT OUR EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WHAT IT IS TO BE A WOMAN. IF WE CAN BE FIRED FOR NOT BEING THE RIGHT KIND OF WOMAN, THEN OUR PROTECTIONS AGAINST SEX DISCRIMINATION REALLY ARE MEANINGLESS.
>> WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE THAT THIS IS WHAT’S CALLED A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CASE, BECAUSE YOU’RE ARGUING OVER WHAT THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL LAW, TITLE VII MEANS. PEOPLE SAY, LOOK, I’M WITH YOU ON THIS, BUT YOU SHOULD JUST PASS LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION. LIKE, YOU CAN ADD INTO TITLE VII, YOU CAN ADD GAY, LESBIAN, AND TRANSGENDER INTO THE LAW.
>> THAT’S REALLY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S SECOND ARGUMENT. AND I THINK THE ANSWER THERE IS, CONGRESS HAS ALREADY PROHIBITED THIS FORM OF DISCRIMINATION. BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, BECAUSE OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL’S SEX, IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED TO AMY WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HER SEX.
>> IT MAKES NO SENSE, OTHERWISE.
>> EXACTLY.
>> AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO GO OUTSIDE THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND SAY, LET’S THINK ABOUT WHAT CONGRESS WAS DOING IN 1964. AND THE RESPONDSE TO THAT IS, WE DON’T TRY TO READ CONGRESS’ MIND. WE LOOK AT THE LAWS CONGRESS ACTUALLY PASSED AND THE WORDS THEY USED.
>> FINAL QUESTION IS, HOW BIG ARE THE STAKES FOR GAY, LESBIAN, AND TRANSGENDER EMPLOYERS IN THIS COUNTRY?
>> THE STAKES COULD GOT BE HIGHER. THIS GOES TO OUR VERY FREEDOM TO WORK, TO SUPPORT OUR FAMILIES SKPEEP SKPEEP AND KEEP A ROOF OVER OUR HEAD. ONE IN FOUR LBGTQ WORKERS HAVE