7th Circuit decision - bfd or ??

"A federal court in Chicago on Tuesday became the first U.S. appellate court in the nation to rule that LGBT employees are protected from workplace discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-law-covers-lgbt-workplace-bias-20170404-story.html
I saw reports that this is BIG but I'm still waiting for the sweet tears of NC Values Coalition before I believe it. Any thoughts?

Tags: 

Comments

I just saw this post

Oh well, it's big enough to have two diaries about it on the same page.

I'm thinking this is a pretty big deal. The 7th Circuit is one step below the Supreme Court, and (as I mentioned above) I don't see the Supremes overturning this ruling. Hell, they might not even take the case.

But as to how this will be practically applied, how it will affect workplace bias, who knows. In any other administration, I would expect directives from the Department of Labor (if not DOJ) to trickle down and become incorporated into private company EEOC policies. But under Trump? ;/

great minds and all that

I saw it last night on Joe Jervis (http://www.joemygod.com/) but no reaction from the other side.
SCOTUS decided Obergefell with Scalia above dirt so Gorsuch should not be a factor. (Please sane justices, take excellent care of yourselves!)
I read that the decision was written in a way to also protect transgender folks. I HOPE!
A victory for fairness while that jerk is in the White House keeps me going.

When will this hit SCOTUS?

When will this hit SCOTUS I wonder? If I remember right, both the of the marriage decisions came down in June which is Pride Month. With the big National Equality March coming up in June, it could be quite the show down.

If SCOTUS lets it stands by not taking the case, that sets some precedent right, but doesn't make the the rule of the land outside of the district that decision came from right? It would require them taking up the case and agreeing with it for it to apply in NC and nationwide right?

IANAL and I wish I knew the answer...

The Trib article has this:
Saying that the college will not seek Supreme Court review, Ivy Tech spokesman Jeff Fanter said the college "denies that it discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of her sex or sexual orientation and will defend the plaintiff's claims on the merits in the trial court."

But I don't know what it means to NC. And I want it to apply to NC right now. How does the judicial system work? Does someone have to sue in the 4th circuit to get a decision that applies to NC?
Some commenters at Joe's seemed to think (mostly joking but also not) that Congress would invalidate the Civil Rights Act to stop it being enforced.

I remember the 4th Circuit ruling

I remember the 4th Circuit ruling that NC and some other nearby states marriage equality before the Supreme Court made it nationwide.

So if this case stops there, then this only applies in IL, WI, and IN. Though other circuits could look at this case if they are considering similar issues if they wanted for future cases.

If it stops here, and doesn't get to SCOTUS until later when Trump has replaced some of the left leaning judges with right leaning judges, then it could still all get overturned.

But 3 states is at least a start.

Yes -- you need a case in the 4th Circuit

Does someone have to sue in the 4th circuit to get a decision that applies to NC?

However, there is already a case in the 11th Circuit that is moving up the ladder. If a "circuit split" occurs -- meaning the 7th and 11th Circuits come to different conclusions about the law, that greatly increases the chances the Supreme Court will take the case. We're not to that point procedurally yet, but getting pretty close.

 

This is a very big deal

Most articles about the decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech note that the 7th Circuit is one of the more conservative circuit courts.

More than that, there are 3 majority opinions in the 8-3 decision.

1) The primary majority is written by Chief Judge Wood (considered a liberal).

2) Judge Posner (long a conservative hero) wrote an opinion by himself essentially endorsing "living Constitution" theory and giving a law lesson to future judges.

3) Most interesting to me is the third opinion by Judge Flaum (a Reagan appointee) saying very succinctly that Title VII includes sexual orientation non-discrimination by the plain meaning of the words in the statute.

Read this third concurring opinion from Judge Flaum carefully. This is the future.