5 ms·

> This depends highly on the state. Some states even protect transgender individuals. Are you seriously saying that you can legally fire somebody for being gay

> This depends highly on the state. Some states even protect transgender individuals. Are you seriously saying that you can legally fire somebody for being gay in some US states? Wouldn't you get sued for discrimination if you did that?

auctiontheory 13y ago
Are you seriously saying that you can legally fire somebody for being gay in some US states? Yes. I'm surprised that you're surprised. Under Obama the tide has definitely turned in favor of gay rights, but gay people are still very far from being equally protected under the law nationwide. And if the next US President is a Republican, many Obama-era gay rights advances might very well be rolled back.
- mercurial 13y ago
  I'm European, this might explain my surprise. My understanding was that employers were usually very careful to avoid lawsuits for wrongful termination when firing people. I had not understood that in some places, discrimination against people with the wrong sexual orientation is fair game, while discrimination against people with the wrong skin colour isn't.
  - jedrek 13y ago
    Not to mention that most states have moved to at will employment, which means that you can be fired for no reason.
    - beagle3 13y ago
      But "at will" means you can be fired for any reason except if the reason is "being in a protected class". Those include pregnant women, for examples. It is so ridiculous it is funny. In the US, the law guarantees NO paid maternity leave, but you can't fire a pregnant lady. So, as soon as she gives birth, you can stop paying her (but not fire her), and then, two weeks after she comes back from maternity leave, you can fire her (because she is no longer in a protected class). So, basically, all this protection amounts to is ... about two extra weeks of severance. US is pretty sad when it comes to labour law and employee rights - and most people living in the US are somehow under the illusion that it is better for them. Does anyone know if sexual preference or sexual orientation is a recognized protected class?
      - epmatsw 13y ago
        Not federally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
      - sailfast 13y ago
        It is true that the US does not guarantee maternity / paternity leave, however many companies do have it, and some are very generous. It's a great incentive to get good people on board. While I agree that a minimum is a good idea (though not sure how it would be legislated in practice) I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated. As for protected classes, it seems that sexual preference is kind of covered under Title VII, but it's flimsy (this is at the Federal level): http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
        aestra 13y ago
        >many companies do have it The people who REALLY need it don't get it though, those working low income jobs who can't afford to save up for maternity leave.
        auctiontheory 13y ago
        AFAIK only a small number of "elite" employers offer generous maternity leave, and it's nothing approaching, say, Scandinavian standards.
        beagle3 13y ago
        In european countries you get between 3 and 12 months of paid maternity/paternity leave by law (in some countries, maternity only, in others, 12 months divide between parents). In some countries you can extend this by 3-6 month of unpaid leave while still protected against termination. > I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated. companies that are more "responsive to change"? What does this mean? Yes, they respond more easily to quarterly results by firing, but I don't know of anyone outside of Wall Street that considers this a good thing. The US labour situation is all fcked up, sorry - up until last year, health insurance was tied to employers (meaning people kept working in places they hated, or did not start a new venture, for health coverage). Now, it's just ultra expensive and tied to a location. (Moved? unlikely you can keep your coverage) Some places in Europe are fcked up in the other extreme - e.g. I've heard from people in Austria and in Denmark that they won't hire employees because they won't be able to fire them without a year's notice. But the e.g. UK, Northern Ireland, Sweden and Germany are doing fine on the both the health care and labour law fronts.
aestra 13y ago
Yes, you can, in SOME places in the United States. The reason being is being gay isn't a "protected" status in FEDERAL civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. Before that one could say "black people need not apply" on a job description or ask women if they were going to be having children soon on a job interview. Being gay was never defined as a protected group outright. That being said, SOME States in the United States have taken it one step further and made homosexuals a protected group and disallowed discrimination against them under STATE law. Some companies have specifically outlawed discrimination against gays via official company policy and extended employee benefits to same sex partners. I don't know if you can see this video outside of the United States, but try to watch it! It gives some examples of people being fired for being gay, and an interview with a completely clueless State lawmaker. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-3-2012/free-at-last--free-to-blast http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-3-2012/free-at-las... EDIT: Looks like I'm slightly wrong. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been interpreted to apply to gays recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_State... In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm The EEOC enforces the prohibitions against employment discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title II of the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (GINA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity. The Commission's interpretations of these statutes apply to its adjudication and enforcement in federal sector as well as private sector and state and local government employment. The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20.... The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.* http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.*

auctiontheory 13y ago

Are you seriously saying that you can legally fire somebody for being gay in some US states? Yes. I'm surprised that you're surprised. Under Obama the tide has definitely turned in favor of gay rights, but gay people are still very far from being equally protected under the law nationwide. And if the next US President is a Republican, many Obama-era gay rights advances might very well be rolled back.

mercurial 13y ago
I'm European, this might explain my surprise. My understanding was that employers were usually very careful to avoid lawsuits for wrongful termination when firing people. I had not understood that in some places, discrimination against people with the wrong sexual orientation is fair game, while discrimination against people with the wrong skin colour isn't.
- jedrek 13y ago
  Not to mention that most states have moved to at will employment, which means that you can be fired for no reason.
  - beagle3 13y ago
    But "at will" means you can be fired for any reason except if the reason is "being in a protected class". Those include pregnant women, for examples. It is so ridiculous it is funny. In the US, the law guarantees NO paid maternity leave, but you can't fire a pregnant lady. So, as soon as she gives birth, you can stop paying her (but not fire her), and then, two weeks after she comes back from maternity leave, you can fire her (because she is no longer in a protected class). So, basically, all this protection amounts to is ... about two extra weeks of severance. US is pretty sad when it comes to labour law and employee rights - and most people living in the US are somehow under the illusion that it is better for them. Does anyone know if sexual preference or sexual orientation is a recognized protected class?
    - epmatsw 13y ago
      Not federally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
    - sailfast 13y ago
      It is true that the US does not guarantee maternity / paternity leave, however many companies do have it, and some are very generous. It's a great incentive to get good people on board. While I agree that a minimum is a good idea (though not sure how it would be legislated in practice) I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated. As for protected classes, it seems that sexual preference is kind of covered under Title VII, but it's flimsy (this is at the Federal level): http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
      - aestra 13y ago
        >many companies do have it The people who REALLY need it don't get it though, those working low income jobs who can't afford to save up for maternity leave.
      - auctiontheory 13y ago
        AFAIK only a small number of "elite" employers offer generous maternity leave, and it's nothing approaching, say, Scandinavian standards.
      - beagle3 13y ago
        In european countries you get between 3 and 12 months of paid maternity/paternity leave by law (in some countries, maternity only, in others, 12 months divide between parents). In some countries you can extend this by 3-6 month of unpaid leave while still protected against termination. > I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated. companies that are more "responsive to change"? What does this mean? Yes, they respond more easily to quarterly results by firing, but I don't know of anyone outside of Wall Street that considers this a good thing. The US labour situation is all fcked up, sorry - up until last year, health insurance was tied to employers (meaning people kept working in places they hated, or did not start a new venture, for health coverage). Now, it's just ultra expensive and tied to a location. (Moved? unlikely you can keep your coverage) Some places in Europe are fcked up in the other extreme - e.g. I've heard from people in Austria and in Denmark that they won't hire employees because they won't be able to fire them without a year's notice. But the e.g. UK, Northern Ireland, Sweden and Germany are doing fine on the both the health care and labour law fronts.

aestra 13y ago

Yes, you can, in SOME places in the United States. The reason being is being gay isn't a "protected" status in FEDERAL civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. Before that one could say "black people need not apply" on a job description or ask women if they were going to be having children soon on a job interview. Being gay was never defined as a protected group outright. That being said, SOME States in the United States have taken it one step further and made homosexuals a protected group and disallowed discrimination against them under STATE law. Some companies have specifically outlawed discrimination against gays via official company policy and extended employee benefits to same sex partners. I don't know if you can see this video outside of the United States, but try to watch it! It gives some examples of people being fired for being gay, and an interview with a completely clueless State lawmaker. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-3-2012/free-at-last--free-to-blast http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-3-2012/free-at-las... EDIT: Looks like I'm slightly wrong. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been interpreted to apply to gays recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_State... In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm The EEOC enforces the prohibitions against employment discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title II of the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (GINA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity. The Commission's interpretations of these statutes apply to its adjudication and enforcement in federal sector as well as private sector and state and local government employment. The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20.... The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.* http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.*