The United States Supreme Court on Monday granted a major victory to millions of gay and transgender workers by granting them the benefit of anti-discrimination mechanisms at work, despite opposition from the government of Donald Trump.
Read also: Health in the United States: Repeal of a measure protecting transgender people
"Today we have to decide if an employer can fire someone just because they are gay or transgender, the answer is clear," the law "prohibits" , said the Court in a majority judgment six out of nine judges. Federal law banned discrimination on grounds of "sex" in 1964, but the majority of the courts, as well as the administration of the Republican president, considered that it applied only to gender differences and not to sexual minorities .
Only more than 20 states have adopted specific protection mechanisms, so far, American employees could be dismissed or denied promotion because of their sexual orientation in more than half of the United States. Defenders of gay, lesbian and transgender workers, supported by many elected Democrats and several large companies including Apple, General Motors and Walt Disney, asked the Court to write black and white that they were protected by the law of 1964 Openly gay, Apple CEO Tim Cook welcomed the move. It represents "a huge victory for equality" after "decades" of struggle, said James Esseks, one of the leaders of the powerful ACLU rights association. It is "a considerable step forward" for America, added the Democratic presidential candidate of November 3, Joe Biden. So far, homosexuals "could get married one day and be fired the next day," he said.
Contrasting reactions
In 2015, the highest court in the United States extended the right to same-sex marriage, but defenders of sexual minorities feared that the two judges appointed by Donald Trump since his election would have made it more conservative. Yet it was one of them, Neil Gorsuch, who drafted the majority decision, adding his voice to that of the four progressive judges and to the chief of the court John Roberts. The authors of the 1964 law "probably did not anticipate that their work would lead to this conclusion," he wrote. "But the limits of their imagination are not a reason to ignore the requirements of the law" , continued this magistrate very attached to the letter of the texts. As for Brett Kavanaugh, also chosen by Donald Trump for his conservative views, he opposed this decision, believing that it was up to Congress and not the justice system to change the law.
Despite these objections, "it is important to salute this important victory for American gays and lesbians ," he stressed, however. They "can be proud of the result". In fact, sexual minorities, and their supporters in political and artistic circles, expressed their joy. "There is a long way to go before perfect equality, but what a wonderful advance , " tweeted singer Taylor Swift in particular. Conversely, defenders of religious freedoms, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom group, denounced a "shocking decision" which, according to them, encroaches on the beliefs of employers - one of the reasons put forward to justify the dismissals of gay employees.
"Aimee's fight"
Concretely, the Court ruled in three separate cases. Two involved gay workers: a parachute instructor, Donald Zarda, and a social worker, Gerald Bostock, who had taken legal action after being dismissed because of their sexual orientation. Illustrating the legal confusion which reigned until now, the courts had ruled in the first and wrong in the second. For the first time in its history, the Court had also examined the file of a transgender person, Aimee Stephens. After having worked as a man for six years in a funeral home in Detroit (north), she had announced to her employer that she intended to assume her identity as a woman. The latter then thanked him in the name of his Christian values.
Aimee Stephens had then embarked on a judicial crusade, ready to embody an invisible minority. "It was time for someone to get up and say enough is enough," she said before the October 8 hearing. Suffering from severe renal failure, she died on May 12 at the age of 59 without knowing the Court's decision. "I am grateful for this victory that honors Aimee's fight , " said his widow Donna in a statement.