« FIU Bar Passage | Main | Research Fellowships at Stanford Constitutional Law Center »

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

On Account of Sex

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear argument in a set if cases that pose the question of what "sex" means in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Does "sex"encompass sexual orientation? Does "sex" encompass a claim of transgender discrimination? And so on.

One thing I'll be watching is whether any of the Justices mention the implications of these cases for the Equal Rights Amendment. At least one of the amicus briefs makes the following point: The Court's interpretation of "sex" in these cases will be highly relevant for the meaning of "sex" in the ERA if one more state ratifies that proposed amendment and puts the constitutional issue back before Congress. If any of them think that ERA ratification is on the table, they may be wary of giving a broad reading to "sex" in Title VII. On the other hand, a narrow reading of "sex" may end up making the ERA's ratification more likely by narrowing its scope.

Posted by Gerard Magliocca on September 17, 2019 at 04:22 PM | Permalink


Trump's nominee Kavanaugh will write the opinion including "sexual orientation" and "gender identification" (cis/trans) in the meaning of "sex" in Title VII, proving Trump is the LGBT candidate and thereby securing his re-election.

Posted by: Blasey Ford-Lincoln-Mercury | Sep 18, 2019 2:13:15 PM

I just couldn't understand, that we deal here with labor issue ( or discrimination in workplace and alike) rendering it, much more complicated. One may find, very good article hereby, reporting very efficiently about those cases ahead. Here:



Posted by: El roam | Sep 18, 2019 12:13:05 PM

It seems that there are issues with the link left above, so here another one:


Posted by: El roam | Sep 18, 2019 11:04:45 AM

Interesting, just worth to note, that already in Tyler v.Doe, the Supreme court held that, I quote:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[no] State shall... deprive any person of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens,because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of
Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful,
have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

End of quotation:

So, I don't know, to what extent it can be argued, that the fourteenth amendment, is relevant for unlawful immigrants, while not for issues of sex orientation and alike derivations.For finally a person is a person.

Here to the ruling:



Posted by: El roam | Sep 18, 2019 11:01:11 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.