The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 15 stated that an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender is violating the law. (Courtesy photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 15 stated that an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender is violating the law. (Courtesy photo)

Supreme Court decision a monumental ruling for LBGTQ rights

Anti-discrimination employment protections in Civil Rights Act extended across the U.S.

Supreme Court decision a monumental ruling for LBGTQ rights

By Christopher Dolan and Matthew Gramly

What is the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision on LGBTQ employees?

On June 15, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision stating with firmness and clarity that any employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgendered is in violation of the law.

The law being violated in that instance would be the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII makes it “unlawful … for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The basic argument is that if an employer has two employees, one male and one female, but only fires the male employee because he dates men, but doesn’t fire the female employee because she dates men, the employer has discriminated against the male employee on the basis of his gender. The employer accepts behavior from the female employee that he does not accept from the male employee and the only difference between the two employees is their gender.

This ruling is monumental for LGBTQ rights in that the full complement of anti-discrimination employment protections found within the Civil Rights Act have now been extended to the LGBTQ community across the country.

It is now illegal in the U.S. for any employer to fire an employee on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Prior to the June 15 decision, it was still legal for an employer to do so in 26 states. With Pride celebrations and parades being canceled across the country because of the coronavirus pandemic, it is also fitting that this decision was handed down during Pride month.

Also of great importance is the justice wrote this opinion. The decision was a 6-3 majority, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the four more liberal members. The forceful, no-nonsense opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch in very clear language leaving no ambiguity to the court’s decision.

An immediate backlash formed on the right in this country. Many religious conservatives decried the ruling as an attack on religious freedom. Evangelical leader Franklin Graham issued a fiery response to the ruling on Facebook, stating, “I believe this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country. People of sincere faith who stand on God’s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs. These are the freedoms our nation was founded on.”

He argues that his religious freedom is negatively impacted should he be prevented from firing someone from his church for being gay or transgender. Federal law now disagrees with him.

This position strikes at a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “religious freedom” specifically as used by someone like Mr. Graham. Religious freedom means the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose. It also means, as stated in the First Amendment, that the government cannot force you to practice any particular religion against your will.

For example, “I cannot do something because it goes against my religious beliefs” is a perfectly distilled illustration of this. However, “YOU cannot do something because it goes against MY religious beliefs,” the position taken by Mr. Graham, is twisting the concept of religious freedom to a degree that is both unacceptable in this country and is in violation of the ideals of individual freedom embodied by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Very often, those who use the term “religious freedom” the loudest and most frequently leave off the two words that define this idea for them, “religious freedom to discriminate.”

Many on the right now take the position that their religious freedom, their freedom to be a religious person and to practice their religion in the U.S., is being destroyed because they will no longer be permitted to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community in their hiring practices.

Understand that no rights have been taken from Mr. Graham’s evangelicals or any other religious group in this ruling. Justice Gorsuch, as he wrote in his opinion, simply read the plain text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and said, “It is a violation of the law for any employer to discriminate against an employee because of their gender,” which is exactly what the act says.

One astute observer put it this way: Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you — it’s not pie. Another observer, Jesus Christ, put it this way, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

The Dolan Law Firm has fought tooth and nail for the rights of the LGBTQ community for decades and will continue to do so. We celebrate the Supreme Court’s ruling as we celebrate Pride month with our families, friends, co-workers and community. Happy Pride everyone.

Christopher B. Dolan is owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Matthew Gramly is a senior attorney in our San Francisco office. Email questions and topics for future articles to:

We serve clients across the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. Our work is no recovery, no free or also referred to as contingency-based. That means we collect no fee unless we obtain money for your damages and injuries.


Just Posted

People take part in early voting for the November 5 election at City Hall on Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2019. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Electionpalooza: SF school board recall will kick off a flurry of local races

‘It’s going to be a lot of elections and a lot of decisions for voters to make’

The fate of San Francisco nicotine giant Juul remains to be seen, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing whether to allow certain flavored vape products on the market. <ins>(Jeenah Moon/New York Times)</ins>
How the vape king of teen nicotine addiction rose and fell in San Francisco

‘Hey, Juul, don’t let the door hit you on the way out’

Cabernet sauvignon grapes sat in a container after being crushed at Smith-Madrone Winery in St. Helena. (Courtesy Smith-Madrone Winery)
San Francisco’s ‘Champagne problems’ — Wine industry suffers supply chain woes

‘Everywhere you turn, things that were easy are no longer easy’

Glasses behind the bar at LUNA in the Mission District on Friday, Oct. 15, 2021. Glassware is just one of the many things restaurants have had trouble keeping in stock as supply chain problems ripple outward. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
SF restaurants face product shortages and skyrocketing costs

‘The supply chain crisis has impacted us in almost every way imaginable’

A student carries a protection shield to her next class as part of her school’s COVID-19 safety measures. (Courtesy Allison Shelley/Eduimages)
Projected K-12 drops in enrollment pose immediate upheaval and decade-long challenge

State forecasts 11.4% fewer students by 2031 — LA and Bay Area to be hit hardest

Most Read