Breaking: #SCOTUS denies review of Jameka Evans' case raising question of whether Title VII protects gay people against discrimination.pic.twitter.com/gpjr5FSNwL
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
For Jameka Evans, the #SCOTUS decision not to take her case (& earlier 11th Cir decision not to go en banc) means that a 1979 ruling against gay people has controlled her per se sexual orientation discrimination case. From the 11th Cir's 3-judge decision: http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201515234.pdf …pic.twitter.com/TXByf3HSxK
The consideration of the issue back in 1979 appeared in a per curiam decision that ruled against the plaintiff on other grounds and dismissed the sexual orientation claim in a single sentence without further discussion. https://openjurist.org/597/f2d/936/blum-v-gulf-oil-corporation …pic.twitter.com/tkktXJNZnk
MY REPORT: Justices Won't Hear Case Asking Whether Civil Rights Laws Protect Against Anti-Gay Discrimination https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justices-wont-hear-case-asking-whether-civil-rights-laws?utm_term=.qvj47WqaJ … #SCOTUS
It probably won't keep alarmists in our community from ripping out their hair and screaming portents of doom. But it's still good to know.
Houston, cakes, and now this. Anyone seeing a trend here?
The refusal bring a constitutional claim is deadly. If a statutory only case reading Title VII or Title IX to include gender identity ot sexual orientation comes up Scotus will reverse it. But it would find a unique right (not same as sex) in constitution if they got that case.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.