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

Breaking: In Historic Ruling, EEOC Finds Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Already Illegal - The New Civil Rights Movement

For the basics:

After decades of fighting for protections against discrimination in the workplace, gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees are actually covered under federal law already, the EEOC has ruled this afternoon. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds GLB workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC finds today that "allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex," as Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner first reported.

Today's ruling is historic, and sets an important precedent that no doubt will lead to a Supreme Court case in the future. 

Technically, the ruling covers federal workers directly, but, as Geidner notes, "it also applies to the entire EEOC, which includes its offices across the nation that take and investigate claims of discrimination in private employment. And, while only the Supreme Court could issue a definitive ruling on the interpretation, EEOC decisions are given significant deference by federal courts."

In short, the commission today has ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on sex, and thus covered under federal law.

From Ari Ezra Waldman over at TowlerRoad, who expands a bit more,

This is a groundbreaking development because federal judges listen closely to EEOC decisions. The EEOC is the agency in charge of interpreting and implementing Title VII; the Commission is the expert in the law of employment discrimination. And basic principles of administrative law state that the judiciary should give significant deference to agency conclusions because, unlike generalist judges, EEOC commissioners are the experts in this field of law. So, although we would feel better if this ruling were handed down by a federal court, the EEOC has taken an enormous jump in that direction.

The EEOC case involved a federal employee, so the Commission’s decision gives federal employees an avenue for justice. But for those who work for most private companies, things are not so certain. True, the decision does not directly apply to them and their employers. However, the basis for private companies’ decisions to discriminate against gays is that Title VII allows it. It will be hard to make that argument now: at least according to the EEOC, Title VII does not permit anti-gay discrimination.

Still, more work needs to be done. We need to take this decision to the Supreme Court to ensure it applies to all workers. We also need a comprehensive anti-gay discrimination law passed at the federal level because this decision (and Title VII) only applies to employment discrimination. Gays are discriminated against in the provision of housing, education, and a host of other social services. But remember this EEOC decision. It will pop up again, and again, as we march further toward full equality.

Why is this important,

When one looks at the decision rendered by SCOTUS [in regards to Hobby Lobby ruling] it has to be through the lens of the Reich's overall agenda -  starting with a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or an outright repeal of the First Amendment,  continuing with the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending with the implementation of dominionist ideology in order to govern by theocratic control.  With the ruling in Hobby Lobby, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously objectionable.” 

It just may throw a kink into their plan as exemplified by Newland v. Sebilius.

Breaking: In Historic Ruling, EEOC Finds Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Already Illegal - The New Civil Rights Movement

Walgreens Fires Pharmacist for Refusing to Compromise His Beliefs by Selling 'Plan B'

"Dr. Hall, a Baptist, entertains profound religious and moral objections to dispensing abortifacients, or abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B. For six years, Walgreens respected Hall’s religious beliefs and gave him only favorable reviews for his work performance. But in August 2013, Walgreens did an about-face and tried to force Hall to dispense Plan B in violation of his beliefs. When Hall indicated his intent to continue following the internal procedures that accommodated his beliefs, Walgreens fired him."

KEY WORD: Dispensing. What this article glosses over, Plan B is now sold OTC (over-the-counter) there is no dispensing necessary.

“Dr. Hall’s right to live according to his religious beliefs, including in his workplace, is protected both under the Federal Civil Rights Act and the Tennessee State Constitution,” says Crain. “Americans have the right to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs and not be forced to participate in actions that they deeply and sincerely believe are morally wrong.”

Isn't lying, also morally wrong?  Plan B is not an abortifacient. Plan B is not in the same category as RU-486. Plan B is a high dose progesterone that may prevent or delay ovulation, or it may interfere with fertilization. It is dependent on where an individual (utilizing the medication) is time wise within their cycle.

There is only one drug approved to induce abortion, and that is RU-486 (mifepristone), which is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception (for obvious reasons) and therefore NOT covered by the ACA (think Hobby Lobby). The IUD, Plan B and Ella (a new drug) are on the list of contraceptives and have been studied (and still are being studied) extensively, to state they are abortifacients is IMHO a boldfaced lie. This is pharmacy 101 plain and simple.

One question I would like to ask Mr Hall: Would he dispense methotrexate? It is an anti-cancer drug that can also be used as an abortifacient.

What this article leaves out in their reporting: "A factor in Hall's firing apparently was also his action in personally purchasing and disposing of the store's first shipment of 6 boxes of the over-the-counter version as a way to prevent its being available."

From a legal standpoint, one thought comes to mind. The fact the Hall purchased the boxes prior to disposal does not, in my mind, mitigate the fact that he willfully and intentionally undermined his employer's business. One must mind their Ps-and-Qs in regards to company policy and image; causing a product shortage, not a good thing. Simply put, employees of a store do not get to dictate what the store carries in stock.

But what I really think happened, he bought and disposed of the OTC version just to spite his employer because HE was removed from the sale process. HE lost his means to MAKE A STAND. He lost his ability to judge others, he became impotent (hmm,,,wonder if he had issues with selling Viagra). Hall only acted when he couldn't make HIS stance clear to his audience.

Just how far should an employer have to go to accommodate an employee? Should Catholic employees be exempt from ringing up condoms? What about Viagra for the unmarried? Should Muslims be excused from selling mouthwash and cough syrup because they contain alcohol? Should Jews be allowed to refuse to handle any pork product?

Walgreens Fires Pharmacist for Refusing to Compromise His Beliefs by Selling 'Plan B'