The Walmart Case That Could Expand Gay Rights at Work - Bloomberg Business

While some may see this as a case of gold-digging, the reality of it is it is not and has important implications.  The main premise, discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on gender.  Under Title VII, the EEOC has determined the reason for treating people differently is gender; it is based on the sex of the spouse.

As the article also notes it Walmart's "public persona" at risk as well, "If the company continues defending its old policy, that could carry significant reputational risks. Walmart boasts a 90 percent rating on the Corporate Equality Index compiled by the LGBT nonprofit Human Rights Campaign and last year drew friendly media attention for joining LGBT activists in opposing a religious liberty bill in its home state of Arkansas that would have shielded businesses that discriminated against LGBT customers. Walmart didn’t move to dismiss the Cote case after it was filed in July; efforts to settle the dispute through the EEOC before Cote sued were unsuccessful."

Is anti-gay discrimination a form of sex discrimination? Walmart Stores, the biggest private employer in the U.S., is the target of a lawsuit that might soon provide an answer to that question.

Walmart didn’t extend spousal health benefits to employees in same-sex marriages until January 2014, even in states where same-sex marriage was legal. Before then, when workers such as Jackie Cote applied for coverage for their same-sex spouses, Walmart rejected their requests, as it has maintained it had the right to do. While the Supreme Court last year ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t mention sexual orientation.

The act does provide protection on the basis of sex, and that’s a premise of the lawsuit Cote filed last summer on behalf of herself and a class of plaintiffs that lawyers now estimate to be 1,200 current and former Walmart employees. Cote, who has worked at Walmart since 1999, married Diana Smithson in Massachusetts in 2004. In 2012, Smithson, a breast cancer survivor, was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer. Within two years, without Walmart insurance to cover Smithson’s treatment, the couple racked up more than $150,000 in medical bills. “I thought that they would really have no choice because I was legally married in the state of Massachusetts,” Cote says.

Seeking compensation for the benefits that were denied and out-of-pocket medical expenses, the suit alleges that Walmart’s stance was unlawful because it’s a form of sex discrimination. “The sex of her spouse is the reason for treating people differently—isn’t that discrimination based on sex?” asks attorney Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, one of the advocacy groups representing Cote.

The case, among a recent wave of lawsuits over the past several years to grapple with this question, is headed to mediation on Feb. 22; if a settlement isn’t reached, it’s scheduled for trial in federal court in Massachusetts in November. Legal experts, civil rights advocates specializing in anti-gay and gender-identity bias, and employment lawyers who defend large companies say whatever the outcome, the case against Walmart could help set a precedent by expanding the definition of sex discrimination. That might lead other employers to reconsider the risks of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The argument that sexual-orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination can apply to other types of workplace bias as well, such as employees alleging they were fired or denied promotions for being gay.

The Walmart Case That Could Expand Gay Rights at Work - Bloomberg Business

Man claims he lost job at Catholic home because he's gay - US News

This is one of those incidents that may scream injustice BUT,,,

And I say this cautiously - anyone who honestly thinks: 1] "the church" is changing, or 2] that they can change "the church" from within, is deluding themselves.  "The church": - and I am talking your mainline hardcore sects (not the prog/liberals) - want only one thing, power and the money that comes with it.  They do not give a shit about who they step on to get it; they will lie cheat and steal.

While I agree that who you fuck has no bearing one's job performance, I am concerned as to where Murphy got the idea, "I thought I found a safe place where I could do good and I won't be judged and I won't be ostracized."  Sorry dude but what fucking planet do you live on?  Please quit listening to the PR Pope,,,

Several LGBT Catholic workers and teachers have lost their jobs over the past few years simply for being “out” about who they are, with administrators often justifying the terminations by citing the Catholic Church’s historic opposition to homosexual acts. Catholic officials also often claim protection under the “ministerial exception” — a legal concept expanded in 2012 that allows faith-based organizations to discriminate when hiring for jobs they classify as “ministerial.”

Now my shitty attitude aside, which I will blame on my post stroke depression, this incident does offer an interesting legal twist, if it goes through the court system.  Something I also posted about back in July:

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ruled in July that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — which bars employers from discriminating against someone because of their sex, race and religion — also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

There is a religious exemption in the law, but it goes only so far as to allow organizations from refusing to hire people who aren't part of their religion, said Samuel Bagenstos, a professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in constitutional and civil rights law.

If the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds that Murphy was discriminated against, it will try to negotiate a settlement between the two sides. If it finds that there has been no discrimination or a settlement can't be reached, it will likely end up in federal court, where the potential outcome is unclear.

The issue hasn't been tested in court since the commission made its ruling in July and courts aren't required to follow the commission's guidelines.

"This is a very quickly developing area of the law," Bagenstos says. "It's, in some ways, a very open issue in the federal courts right now."

Man claims he lost job at Catholic home because he's gay - US News

Editor who used 'gaystapo' claims religious discrimination

There is a lot of minutiae to this complaint that does not make it a slam dunk for either side. It will be interesting as to how it plays out. The Hobby Lobby ruling may factor in as well as the whole shebang of "religious liberty" that the religionists are fond of pushing.

An Iowa newspaper editor fired after publishing his views on homosexuals is claiming he was the victim of religious discrimination by his former employer.

Bob Eschliman, former editor of the Newton Daily News, filed a complaint this week with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office in Milwaukee arguing that he was terminated May 5 because of his religious beliefs. If the dispute isn't resolved to Eschliman's satisfaction, he could sue in federal court to seek financial damages.

In late April, Eschliman, 41, a member of Christian Reformed Church of Newton, wrote a personal blog post criticizing the "Queen James Bible," a website that rewrites the Christian Bible to be friendlier to gays. Eschliman accused "the LGBTQXYZ crowd and the Gaystapo" of trying "to make their sinful nature right with God."

Jim Romenesko, who hosts a widely read online blog about the news media, reported on Eschliman's post and questioned whether Eschliman, in light of his publicly stated views, would be able to fairly cover issues involving gays.

Editor who used 'gaystapo' claims religious discrimination