This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/nyregion/gender-discrimination-civil-rights-lawsuit-zarda.html
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Appeals Court Rules | Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Appeals Court Rules |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled on Monday that federal civil rights law bars employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation. | A federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled on Monday that federal civil rights law bars employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation. |
| The case, which stemmed from the 2010 dismissal of a Long Island sky-diving instructor, was a setback for the Trump Justice Department, whose lawyers found themselves in the unusual position of arguing against government lawyers from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. | The case, which stemmed from the 2010 dismissal of a Long Island sky-diving instructor, was a setback for the Trump Justice Department, whose lawyers found themselves in the unusual position of arguing against government lawyers from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. |
| The E.E.O.C. had argued that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars workplace discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” protected gay employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. | The E.E.O.C. had argued that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars workplace discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” protected gay employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. |
| But the Trump Justice Department took the position that the law did not reach sexual orientation, and said the E.E.O.C. was “not speaking for the United States.” | But the Trump Justice Department took the position that the law did not reach sexual orientation, and said the E.E.O.C. was “not speaking for the United States.” |
| The Justice Department and Altitude Express, the instructor’s employer, could seek review of the decision by the United States Supreme Court, although neither party had any immediate comment on the ruling. | The Justice Department and Altitude Express, the instructor’s employer, could seek review of the decision by the United States Supreme Court, although neither party had any immediate comment on the ruling. |
| In its decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, “We see no principled basis for recognizing a violation of Title VII for associational discrimination based on race but not on sex.” | In its decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, “We see no principled basis for recognizing a violation of Title VII for associational discrimination based on race but not on sex.” |
| “Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted,” the appellate court added, “making it impossible for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without taking sex into account.” | “Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted,” the appellate court added, “making it impossible for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without taking sex into account.” |
| The ruling, written by the Second Circuit’s chief judge, Robert A. Katzmann, was joined, in part or whole, by nine other judges. Three judges dissented. In addition to Judge Katzmann’s decision, seven judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting. | The ruling, written by the Second Circuit’s chief judge, Robert A. Katzmann, was joined, in part or whole, by nine other judges. Three judges dissented. In addition to Judge Katzmann’s decision, seven judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting. |
| The appeals court only rarely issues decisions in what is known as the en-banc court, in which all eligible judges, in this case 13, participate. Usually, the appeals court issues rulings through three-judge panels. | |
| The issue, which had divided federal appeals courts around the country, centered on the firing of Donald Zarda, by Altitude Express. Mr. Zarda had told a female student as they prepared for a sky-diving jump that he was “100 percent gay,” and her boyfriend complained to the school about the encounter. | The issue, which had divided federal appeals courts around the country, centered on the firing of Donald Zarda, by Altitude Express. Mr. Zarda had told a female student as they prepared for a sky-diving jump that he was “100 percent gay,” and her boyfriend complained to the school about the encounter. |
| Mr. Zarda said that he had made the statement to the woman because she had seemed uncomfortable with the close physical contact involved in her being so tightly strapped to her instructor. | Mr. Zarda said that he had made the statement to the woman because she had seemed uncomfortable with the close physical contact involved in her being so tightly strapped to her instructor. |