Christine​ ​Skorupa

Professor​ ​Therese​ ​Cingranelli

PLSC​ ​387E

28​ ​September​ ​2017

Title​ ​VII​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act​ ​of​ ​1964​ ​vs.​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​Community

This​ ​essay​ ​is​ ​going​ ​to​ ​discuss​ ​whether​ ​or​ ​not​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act​ ​of​ ​1964

should​ ​protect​ ​against​ ​discrimination​ ​based​ ​on​ ​sexual​ ​orientation.​ ​Three​ ​sides​ ​that​ ​can​ ​be​ ​taken

on​ ​this​ ​topic​ ​include​ ​first:​ ​those​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Trump​ ​administration’s​ ​nominees​ ​for​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States

Equal​ ​Employment​ ​Opportunity​ ​Commission​ ​(EEOC),​ ​Janet​ ​Dhillon​ ​and​ ​Daniel​ ​Gade,​ ​second:

those​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Equal​ ​Employment​ ​Opportunity​ ​Commission​ ​as​ ​it​ ​stands​ ​right​ ​now,​ ​and​ ​third:​ ​of​ ​the

Department​ ​of​ ​Justice​ ​(DOJ)​ ​under​ ​Attorney​ ​General​ ​Jeff​ ​Sessions.​ ​These​ ​opinions​ ​and

concluding​ ​actions​ ​taken​ ​will​ ​most​ ​definitely​ ​result​ ​in​ ​drastic​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​interpretation​ ​of

discrimination​ ​in​ ​the​ ​workplace,​ ​will​ ​also​ ​result​ ​in​ ​widespread​ ​dissent​ ​among​ ​and​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Trump

administration,​ ​and​ ​maybe​ ​soon​ ​will​ ​conclude​ ​in​ ​a​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​decision.​ ​Though,​ ​dissent​ ​is

already​ ​prevalent​ ​even​ ​before​ ​an​ ​ultimatum​ ​has​ ​been​ ​reached:​ ​two​ ​federal​ ​agencies​ ​(the​ ​EEOC

and​ ​the​ ​DOJ)​ ​are​ ​split​ ​in​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law.​ ​(Note:​ ​When​ ​I​ ​am​ ​discussing​ ​“LGBT”

workers,​ ​I​ ​am​ ​speaking​ ​for​ ​everyone​ ​in​ ​the​ ​LGBTQA+​ ​community,​ ​just​ ​with​ ​a​ ​shorter​ ​acronym.)

Title​ ​VII​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act​ ​of​ ​1964​ ​states​ ​that​ ​“It​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​an​ ​unlawful​ ​employment

practice​ ​for​ ​an​ ​employer…to​ ​discriminate​ ​against​ ​any​ ​individual​ ​with​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​his

compensation,​ ​terms,​ ​conditions,​ ​or​ ​privileges​ ​of​ ​employment,​ ​because​ ​of​ ​such​ ​individual’s​ ​race,
color,​ ​religion,​ ​sex,​ ​or​ ​national​ ​origin,”​ ​(Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act,​ ​1964).​ ​It​ ​was​ ​passed​ ​under​ ​President

Lyndon​ ​B.​ ​Johnson,​ ​and​ ​was​ ​a​ ​prominent​ ​civil​ ​rights​ ​achievement.​ ​The​ ​Act​ ​also​ ​created​ ​the

Equal​ ​Employment​ ​Opportunity​ ​Commission,​ ​a​ ​federal​ ​agency​ ​whose​ ​mission​ ​today​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be

“responsible​ ​for​ ​enforcing​ ​federal​ ​laws​ ​that​ ​make​ ​it​ ​illegal​ ​to​ ​discriminate​ ​against​ ​a​ ​job​ ​applicant

or​ ​an​ ​employee​ ​because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​person's​ ​race,​ ​color,​ ​religion,​ ​sex​ ​(including​ ​pregnancy,​ ​gender

identity,​ ​and​ ​sexual​ ​orientation),​ ​national​ ​origin,​ ​age​ ​(40​ ​or​ ​older),​ ​disability​ ​or​ ​genetic

information”​ ​(EEOC,​ ​2017).​ ​This​ ​Act​ ​is​ ​widely​ ​applied​ ​everyday​ ​to​ ​prevent​ ​all​ ​kinds​ ​of

discrimination​ ​in​ ​the​ ​workplace,​ ​and​ ​is​ ​now​ ​being​ ​questioned​ ​for​ ​its​ ​validity​ ​in​ ​regards​ ​to​ ​sexual

orientation.​ ​(Note:​ ​Sexual​ ​orientation​ ​is​ ​mentioned​ ​on​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​website,​ ​but​ ​not​ ​in​ ​Title​ ​VII.)

The​ ​United​ ​States​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​a​ ​federal​ ​executive​ ​department,​ ​has​ ​a​ ​similar​ ​mission​ ​to

that​ ​of​ ​the​ ​EEOC:​ ​“to​ ​enforce​ ​the​ ​law​ ​and​ ​defend​ ​the​ ​interests​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​according​ ​to

the​ ​law;…to​ ​seek​ ​just​ ​punishment​ ​for​ ​those​ ​guilty​ ​of​ ​unlawful​ ​behavior;​ ​and​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​fair​ ​and

impartial​ ​administration​ ​of​ ​justice​ ​for​ ​all​ ​Americans,”​ ​(Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​2017).

One​ ​court​ ​case,​ ​Zarda​ ​v.​ ​Altitude​ ​Express​,​ ​is​ ​prevalent​ ​when​ ​discussing​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​in

regards​ ​to​ ​sexual​ ​orientation.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​a​ ​gay​ ​skydiving​ ​instructor​ ​(Donald​ ​Zarda)​ ​was​ ​fired​ ​by

Altitude​ ​Express​ ​Inc.​ ​after​ ​revealing​ ​his​ ​sexual​ ​orientation​ ​to​ ​a​ ​customer​ ​(Lambda​ ​Legal,​ ​2017).

He​ ​then​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​discrimination​ ​complaint​ ​with​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​for​ ​violating​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Civil

Rights​ ​Act.​ ​In​ ​2010,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​District​ ​Court​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Eastern​ ​District​ ​of​ ​New​ ​York​ ​said​ ​that​ ​the

Act​ ​did​ ​not​ ​protect​ ​him​ ​(because​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​cover​ ​sexual​ ​orientation).​ ​In​ ​January​ ​of​ ​2017,​ ​there

was​ ​an​ ​argued​ ​appeal​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Second​ ​Circuit,​ ​but​ ​in​ ​April,​ ​his​ ​claim​ ​was​ ​denied.​ ​If​ ​the​ ​entire

Second​ ​Circuit​ ​agrees​ ​with​ ​the​ ​arguments​ ​placed​ ​about​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​though,​ ​a​ ​new​ ​trial​ ​may​ ​be​ ​held.
 In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​discuss​ ​the​ ​sides​ ​to​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​on​ ​Title​ ​VII,​ ​the​ ​new​ ​EEOC​ ​nominees​ ​under​ ​the

Trump​ ​administration​ ​must​ ​also​ ​be​ ​discussed:​ ​Janet​ ​Dhillon​ ​and​ ​Daniel​ ​Gade,​ ​as​ ​their​ ​opinions

are​ ​going​ ​to​ ​be​ ​critical​ ​in​ ​the​ ​coming​ ​years,​ ​especially​ ​regarding​ ​such​ ​a​ ​landmark​ ​case.​ ​Dhillon​ ​is

nominated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​the​ ​next​ ​chair​ ​of​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​and​ ​Gade​ ​is​ ​nominated​ ​to​ ​fill​ ​a​ ​vacancy​ ​within​ ​the

EEOC​ ​(​Washington​ ​Blade​,​ ​25​ ​Sep.​ ​2017).​ ​Dhillon​ ​is​ ​a​ ​lawyer​ ​and​ ​general​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​Burlington

stores,​ ​and​ ​Gade​ ​is​ ​a​ ​war​ ​veteran​ ​who​ ​previously​ ​worked​ ​under​ ​George​ ​W.​ ​Bush’s

administration​ ​on​ ​veterans’​ ​issues​ ​and​ ​military​ ​healthcare.

The​ ​new​ ​EEOC​ ​nominees,​ ​Dhillon​ ​and​ ​Gade,​ ​both​ ​have​ ​similar​ ​ideas​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​of

the​ ​Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act​ ​of​ ​1964​ ​protecting​ ​against​ ​discrimination​ ​based​ ​on​ ​sexual​ ​orientation​ ​topic.

Their​ ​opinions,​ ​in​ ​short,​ ​are​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Act​ ​does​ ​not​ ​protect​ ​against​ ​LGBT​ ​discrimination,​ ​even

though​ ​they​ ​both​ ​personally​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​discriminated

against​ ​in​ ​the​ ​workforce.​ ​Dhillon​ ​expressed​ ​at​ ​a​ ​U.S.​ ​Committee​ ​on​ ​Health,​ ​Education,​ ​Labor,

and​ ​Pensions​ ​hearing​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​more​ ​important​ ​for​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​to​ ​“speak​ ​as​ ​one

voice”​ ​(​Business​ ​Insider​,​ ​20​ ​Sep.​ ​2017).​ ​Gade​ ​expressed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​“committed​ ​to​ ​enforcing​ ​the

law​ ​as​ ​it’s​ ​written​ ​and​ ​as​ ​the​ ​court​ ​interpreted​ ​it”.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Washington​ ​Blade​,​ ​Dhillon

would​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​Congress​ ​to​ ​come​ ​up​ ​with​ ​a​ ​solution​ ​through​ ​the​ ​legislative​ ​branch​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to

protect​ ​LGBT​ ​workers.​ ​Democratic​ ​Senator​ ​Patty​ ​Murray​ ​openly​ ​described​ ​Dillon’s​ ​thoughts

concerning​ ​the​ ​issue​ ​as​ ​“wishy-washy”.

A​ ​strength​ ​to​ ​their​ ​argument​ ​is​ ​that​ ​indeed,​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​should​ ​be​ ​coming

together​ ​and​ ​not​ ​hold​ ​such​ ​opposing​ ​views​ ​on​ ​Title​ ​VII.​ ​Splitting​ ​decisions​ ​across​ ​federal

agencies,​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​and​ ​the​ ​DOJ,​ ​are​ ​confusing​ ​and​ ​worrying,​ ​especially​ ​when​ ​it​ ​comes​ ​to
interpreting​ ​such​ ​a​ ​crucial​ ​law.​ ​Dhillon​ ​made​ ​it​ ​very​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​she​ ​simply​ ​wants​ ​a​ ​unifying

decision​ ​-​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​be​ ​that​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community​ ​can​ ​be​ ​discriminated​ ​against​ ​or​ ​not.​ ​This​ ​part

of​ ​the​ ​argument​ ​is​ ​prevalent​ ​and​ ​definitely​ ​a​ ​needed​ ​result​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cases​ ​regarding​ ​workplace

discrimination.

These​ ​aforementioned​ ​“wishy-washy”​ ​statements​ ​made,​ ​though,​ ​contribute​ ​to​ ​a​ ​large

weakness​ ​in​ ​Dhillon’s​ ​and​ ​Gade’s​ ​argument:​ ​their​ ​point​ ​of​ ​view​ ​is​ ​not​ ​entirely​ ​clear.​ ​Though

they​ ​both​ ​have​ ​their​ ​own​ ​more​ ​liberal​ ​personal​ ​views​ ​on​ ​granting​ ​equality​ ​in​ ​the​ ​workplace,

these​ ​do​ ​not​ ​match​ ​with​ ​what​ ​they​ ​mention​ ​at​ ​hearings​ ​or​ ​in​ ​interviews.​ ​They​ ​both​ ​seem

reluctant​ ​to​ ​release​ ​any​ ​drastic​ ​opinions,​ ​or​ ​entirely​ ​side​ ​with​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​or​ ​the​ ​DOJ.​ ​Even​ ​though

on​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​website,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be​ ​surmised​ ​that​ ​the​ ​commission​ ​believes​ ​it​ ​is​ ​illegal​ ​for​ ​a​ ​job

applicant​ ​to​ ​be​ ​discriminated​ ​against​ ​for​ ​their​ ​sexual​ ​orientation;​ ​Dhillon​ ​and​ ​Gade​ ​both​ ​have​ ​not

publicly​ ​declared​ ​their​ ​motivations​ ​to​ ​uphold​ ​this​ ​idea.​ ​How​ ​can​ ​we​ ​know​ ​what​ ​the​ ​future

appointees​ ​of​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​will​ ​do​ ​for​ ​or​ ​against​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community?​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​way​ ​of​ ​the

public​ ​knowing,​ ​at​ ​least​ ​with​ ​the​ ​answers​ ​they​ ​are​ ​currently​ ​giving,​ ​until​ ​they​ ​are​ ​successfully​ ​in

the​ ​commission.

The​ ​EEOC,​ ​as​ ​it​ ​stands​ ​(using​ ​its​ ​mission​ ​statements​ ​and​ ​previous​ ​actions​ ​taken​ ​under​ ​the

Obama​ ​administration),​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​does​ ​cover​ ​sexual​ ​orientation​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​that​ ​the

Act​ ​should​ ​protect​ ​against​ ​discrimination​ ​against​ ​sexual​ ​orientation.​ ​Previous​ ​commissioner​ ​for

the​ ​EEOC,​ ​Jenny​ ​Yang,​ ​said​ ​her​ ​greatest​ ​achievement​ ​was​ ​helping​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​become​ ​more

broadly​ ​interpreted​ ​to​ ​encompass​ ​sexual​ ​orientation​ ​and​ ​gender​ ​identity​ ​as​ ​well​ ​(Business

Insider,​ ​20​ ​Sep.​ ​2017).​ ​Though​ ​the​ ​wording​ ​in​ ​the​ ​original​ ​Act​ ​is​ ​short​ ​(the​ ​main​ ​argument​ ​for
this​ ​is​ ​centered​ ​around​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​“sex”),​ ​the​ ​law​ ​is​ ​meant​ ​to​ ​be​ ​adapted​ ​to​ ​and​ ​interpreted

by​ ​changes​ ​in​ ​the​ ​society​ ​it​ ​has​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​as​ ​time​ ​goes​ ​on.​ ​Many​ ​LGBT-supportive​ ​groups

including​ ​LGBTQ​ ​Advocates​ ​&​ ​Defenders​ ​and​ ​the​ ​National​ ​Center​ ​for​ ​Transgender​ ​Equality

side​ ​with​ ​the​ ​EEOC,​ ​worrying​ ​that​ ​steps​ ​in​ ​regards​ ​to​ ​giving​ ​protection​ ​to​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community

could​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​back​ ​by​ ​the​ ​new​ ​nominees​ ​Dhillon​ ​and​ ​Gade,​ ​even​ ​questioning​ ​their​ ​credibility​ ​to

lead​ ​this​ ​commission.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​nonsensical​ ​to​ ​fire​ ​employees​ ​because​ ​of​ ​who

they​ ​are,​ ​and​ ​they​ ​confirm​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​has​ ​continuously​ ​fought​ ​on​ ​the​ ​side​ ​of​ ​LGBT

Americans​ ​in​ ​court​ ​cases​ ​to​ ​uphold​ ​this​ ​belief.

A​ ​strength​ ​to​ ​the​ ​EEOC’s​ ​argument​ ​is​ ​that​ ​employees​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​fired​ ​because​ ​of​ ​who

they​ ​are.​ ​If​ ​people​ ​can​ ​be​ ​protected​ ​from​ ​discrimination​ ​against​ ​“race,​ ​color,​ ​religion,​ ​sex,​ ​or

national​ ​origin,”​ ​then​ ​sexual​ ​orientation​ ​should​ ​fall​ ​under​ ​this​ ​category.​ ​To​ ​deny​ ​a​ ​person

employment​ ​on​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​who​ ​they​ ​are,​ ​not​ ​who​ ​they​ ​choose​ ​to​ ​be,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​denying​ ​them​ ​their​ ​basic

individual​ ​(American)​ ​rights.​ ​This​ ​idea​ ​has​ ​been​ ​defended​ ​in​ ​courts​ ​since​ ​2002​ ​in​ ​lower​ ​level

district​ ​courts​ ​(​Newsweek​,​ ​28​ ​September​ ​2017).​ ​For​ ​the​ ​Trump​ ​administration​ ​to​ ​alter​ ​these

ideals,​ ​it​ ​would​ ​make​ ​deliberation​ ​on​ ​future​ ​LGBT​ ​cases​ ​more​ ​confusing​ ​and​ ​contrasting,​ ​with

no​ ​clear​ ​idea​ ​about​ ​how​ ​the​ ​American​ ​government​ ​treats​ ​equality​ ​issues​ ​in​ ​the​ ​workplace.

To​ ​contrast,​ ​a​ ​weakness​ ​to​ ​the​ ​EEOC’s​ ​argument​ ​is​ ​that​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​does​ ​not​ ​clearly​ ​define

“sex”.​ ​This​ ​term​ ​can​ ​be​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​sexual​ ​orientation,​ ​gender​ ​identity,​ ​or​ ​a​ ​number​ ​of​ ​things:​ ​but

it​ ​also​ ​leaves​ ​it​ ​possible​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​bare-bones​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law,​ ​especially​ ​if​ ​one​ ​goes​ ​by

the​ ​dictionary​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​the​ ​word.​ ​If​ ​this​ ​case​ ​does​ ​go​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court,​ ​then​ ​there​ ​may

be​ ​an​ ​ultimatum​ ​decision​ ​on​ ​what​ ​this​ ​term​ ​actually​ ​is​ ​supposed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​interpreted​ ​to​ ​mean.​ ​But​ ​as
for​ ​now,​ ​it​ ​can​ ​still​ ​be​ ​argued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Act​ ​only​ ​protects​ ​against

discrimination​ ​on​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​gender​ ​identity.

The​ ​third​ ​side​ ​of​ ​this​ ​topic​ ​to​ ​cover​ ​would​ ​be​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice’s​ ​side​ ​under​ ​Jeff

Sessions,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​that​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​does​ ​not​ ​protect​ ​against​ ​discrimination​ ​based​ ​on​ ​sexual

orientation.​ ​This​ ​side​ ​takes​ ​a​ ​more​ ​strict,​ ​conservative​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act,

being​ ​that​ ​“sex”​ ​is​ ​simply​ ​defined​ ​as​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​person​ ​identifies​ ​as​ ​male​ ​or​ ​female.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​in

line​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Trump​ ​administration’s​ ​DOJ,​ ​whose​ ​actions​ ​are​ ​observed​ ​by​ ​Newsweek​:​ ​“the

department​ ​has​ ​filed​ ​multiple​ ​amicus​ ​briefs​ ​arguing​ ​against​ ​LGBTQ​ ​protections,”​ ​(​Newsweek​,​ ​28

September​ ​2017).​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​attorney​ ​Hashim​ ​Mooppan​ ​adds​ ​to​ ​this​ ​argument​ ​by

announcing​ ​that​ ​sexual​ ​orientation​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​covered​ ​by​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​in​ ​every​ ​circuit​ ​court​ ​for​ ​50

years​ ​(​Bloomberg​ ​Politics​,​ ​26​ ​September​ ​2017).

A​ ​strength​ ​to​ ​this​ ​argument​ ​is​ ​the​ ​sparse​ ​wording​ ​of​ ​Title​ ​VII.​ ​When​ ​written,​ ​the​ ​word

“sex”​ ​was​ ​only​ ​used​ ​to​ ​prevent​ ​discrimination​ ​against​ ​workers​ ​simply​ ​because​ ​of​ ​their​ ​gender

identity.​ ​Only​ ​recently​ ​is​ ​this​ ​Act​ ​being​ ​used​ ​to​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community,​ ​as​ ​seen​ ​with​ ​the

Zarda​ ​case.​ ​For​ ​years,​ ​as​ ​Mooppan​ ​stated,​ ​this​ ​addition​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​discussed,​ ​so​ ​it​ ​barely​ ​has

authority​ ​over​ ​sexual​ ​orientation.​ ​For​ ​what​ ​it​ ​stands​ ​for​ ​right​ ​now​ ​and​ ​by​ ​dictionary​ ​definition,

only​ ​gender​ ​identity​ ​is​ ​lawfully​ ​protected​ ​under​ ​Title​ ​VII,​ ​unless​ ​Congress​ ​specifically​ ​words​ ​it

into​ ​the​ ​law.

A​ ​weakness​ ​to​ ​this​ ​argument​ ​is​ ​idea​ ​that​ ​the​ ​writers​ ​of​ ​Title​ ​VII​ ​did​ ​not​ ​intend​ ​for​ ​this​ ​act

to​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​sexual​ ​orientation.​ ​We​ ​alter​ ​a​ ​multitude​ ​of​ ​laws​ ​today​ ​to​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​modern​ ​times​ ​that

were​ ​not​ ​intended​ ​for​ ​their​ ​current​ ​use​ ​when​ ​written,​ ​because​ ​the​ ​original​ ​authors​ ​could​ ​not
predict​ ​how​ ​future​ ​society​ ​was​ ​going​ ​to​ ​be.​ ​If​ ​cases​ ​keep​ ​reoccurring​ ​regarding​ ​LGBT​ ​workers

being​ ​discriminated​ ​against​ ​in​ ​the​ ​workplace,​ ​then​ ​changes​ ​must​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to​ ​help​ ​with​ ​this,​ ​either

by​ ​broadening​ ​the​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​word​ ​“sex”​ ​or​ ​by​ ​adding​ ​words​ ​into​ ​the​ ​Act​ ​to​ ​clarify.​ ​But

simply​ ​arguing​ ​that​ ​the​ ​writers​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Act​ ​50​ ​years​ ​ago​ ​did​ ​not​ ​mean​ ​for​ ​this​ ​to​ ​be​ ​applied​ ​is​ ​a

weak​ ​argument,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​does​ ​not​ ​follow​ ​that​ ​truthfully​ ​with​ ​all​ ​the​ ​other

established​ ​laws.

In​ ​the​ ​future,​ ​a​ ​set​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​Title​ ​VII’s​ ​wording​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​(if​ ​this​ ​case

reaches​ ​past​ ​appeals​ ​courts)​ ​has​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​to​ ​either​ ​set​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community​ ​in​ ​America

many​ ​steps​ ​back,​ ​or​ ​on​ ​the​ ​other​ ​hand,​ ​push​ ​the​ ​progressive​ ​movement​ ​and​ ​set​ ​the​ ​country’s

agenda​ ​to​ ​move​ ​forward​ ​in​ ​acceptance​ ​and​ ​equality.​ ​Either​ ​way,​ ​an​ ​interpretation​ ​so​ ​critical​ ​will

definitely​ ​be​ ​faced​ ​with​ ​backlash.​ ​Especially​ ​if​ ​two​ ​federal​ ​agencies​ ​cannot​ ​agree,​ ​that​ ​speaks

volumes​ ​for​ ​how​ ​the​ ​country​ ​as​ ​a​ ​whole​ ​sees​ ​the​ ​situation.​ ​But​ ​a​ ​decision​ ​such​ ​as​ ​this​ ​one​ ​would

establish​ ​a​ ​more​ ​conclusive​ ​and​ ​less​ ​confusing​ ​circumstance​ ​when​ ​it​ ​comes​ ​to​ ​deliberating​ ​on

cases​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Zarda​ ​one.

On​ ​a​ ​smaller​ ​scale:​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​non-committal​ ​opinions​ ​of​ ​EEOC​ ​nominees​ ​Dhillon​ ​and

Gade,​ ​I​ ​am​ ​predicting​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​large​ ​chance​ ​that​ ​when​ ​they​ ​are​ ​in​ ​positions​ ​of​ ​power​ ​within

the​ ​EEOC,​ ​they​ ​will​ ​allow​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice​ ​to​ ​keep​ ​their​ ​strict​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​Title

VII.​ ​Though​ ​this​ ​goes​ ​against​ ​the​ ​EEOC’s​ ​mission​ ​and​ ​will​ ​most​ ​definitely​ ​remove​ ​crucial

protections​ ​from​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community,​ ​their​ ​most​ ​important​ ​want​ ​right​ ​now​ ​seems​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a

unified​ ​federal​ ​opinion,​ ​which​ ​giving​ ​in​ ​will​ ​allow.​ ​This​ ​could​ ​cause​ ​a​ ​large​ ​about​ ​of​ ​distrust​ ​in

the​ ​EEOC,​ ​especially​ ​if​ ​their​ ​fights​ ​for​ ​equality​ ​are​ ​not​ ​in​ ​line​ ​with​ ​what​ ​they​ ​are​ ​doing​ ​with
Title​ ​VII.​ ​If​ ​they​ ​give​ ​into​ ​this​ ​fight​ ​against​ ​discrimination​ ​so​ ​easily,​ ​then​ ​what​ ​is​ ​the​ ​real​ ​role​ ​of

the​ ​EEOC?

An​ ​alternative​ ​situation​ ​would​ ​be​ ​the​ ​EEOC​ ​(with​ ​the​ ​new​ ​nominees​ ​actually​ ​in​ ​power)

actually​ ​following​ ​their​ ​mission​ ​statement​ ​and​ ​fighting​ ​for​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community​ ​to​ ​legally​ ​not

be​ ​discriminated​ ​against​ ​in​ ​the​ ​workplace.​ ​Winning​ ​a​ ​small​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​accepting​ ​“sexual

orientation”​ ​as​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​“sex”​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case​ ​could​ ​open​ ​the​ ​door​ ​to​ ​that​ ​word’s​ ​meaning

in​ ​various​ ​policies​ ​and​ ​situations.​ ​It​ ​would​ ​also​ ​fall​ ​into​ ​America’s​ ​values​ ​of​ ​equality​ ​and

opportunity​ ​for​ ​all,​ ​not​ ​strictly​ ​heterosexuals.​ ​It​ ​has​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​stepping​ ​stone​ ​in​ ​the

direction​ ​of​ ​acceptance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​LGBT​ ​community​ ​in​ ​America,​ ​and​ ​federally​ ​assert​ ​the​ ​workplace

to​ ​do​ ​that​ ​too.

 Works​ ​Cited

Dirksen,​ ​Everett.​ ​"Title​ ​VII​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act​ ​of​ ​1964."​ ​Social​ ​Policy:​ ​Essential​ ​Primary

Sources,​ ​edited​ ​by​ ​K.​ ​Lee​ ​Lerner,​ ​et​ ​al.,​ ​Gale,​ ​2006,​ ​pp.​ ​239-243.​ ​U.S.​ ​History​ ​in​ ​Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX2687400100/UHIC?u=k12_histrc&xid=8cc67cdd.​ ​Accessed​ ​2

Oct.​ ​2017.

History.com​ ​Staff.​ ​“Civil​ ​Rights​ ​Act.”​ ​History.com​,​ ​2010,

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act​.​ ​Accessed​ ​30​ ​September​ ​2017.

Johnson,​ ​Chris.​ ​“Trump’s​ ​EEOC​ ​nominees​ ​‘wishy-washy’​ ​on​ ​LGBT​ ​workplace​ ​rights.”

Washington​ ​Blade​,​ ​25​ ​September​ ​2017,

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/09/25/trumps-eeoc-nominees-wishy-washy-on-lgbt-work

place-rights/​.​ ​Accessed​ ​30​ ​September​ ​2017.

Smith,​ ​Allen.​ ​“In​ ​Focus:​ ​EEOC,​ ​DOJ​ ​Face​ ​Off​ ​Over​ ​Sexual​ ​Orientation​ ​Discrimination.”​ ​Society

for​ ​Human​ ​Resource​ ​Management​,​ ​28​ ​September​ ​2017,

https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/Pages/In-Foc

us-Title-VII-sexual-orientation.aspx​.​ ​Accessed​ ​30​ ​September​ ​2017.

Larson,​ ​Erik.​ ​“Trump​ ​Administration​ ​Says​ ​Bias​ ​Rules​ ​Don't​ ​Cover​ ​Gay​ ​Workers.”​ ​Bloomberg

Politics​,​ ​26​ ​September​ ​2017,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-26/trump-administration-says-workplace-bia

s-rules-don-t-cover-gays​.​ ​Accessed​ ​30​ ​September​ ​2017.

Barbash,​ ​Fred.​ ​“Trump​ ​administration,​ ​intervening​ ​in​ ​major​ ​LGBT​ ​case,​ ​says​ ​job​ ​bias​ ​law​ ​does

not​ ​cover​ ​sexual​ ​orientation.”​ ​The​ ​Washington​ ​Post​,​ ​27​ ​July​ ​2017,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/27/trump-administration-inter

vening-in-major-lgbt-case-says-job-bias-law-does-not-cover-sexual-orientation/?utm_term=.9b8

705aa3eec​.​ ​Accessed​ ​30​ ​September​ ​2017.

Riotta,​ ​Chris.​ ​“Trump​ ​Administration​ ​Says​ ​Employers​ ​Can​ ​Fire​ ​People​ ​for​ ​Being​ ​Gay.”

Newsweek​,​ ​28​ ​September​ ​2017,

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-doj-fired-being-gay-lgbt-issues-jeff-sessions-673398​.

Accessed​ ​30​ ​September​ ​2017.

Cain,​ ​Aine.​ ​“Trump's​ ​nominees​ ​cast​ ​doubt​ ​on​ ​the​ ​future​ ​of​ ​employment​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​LGBT

workers.”​ ​Business​ ​Insider​,​ ​20​ ​September​ ​2017,

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-eeoc-nominees-lgbt-workers-2017-9​.​ ​Accessed​ ​30

September​ ​2017.

“Overview.”​ ​U.S.​ ​Equal​ ​Employment​ ​Opportunity​ ​Commission​,​ ​https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/​.

Accessed​ ​1​ ​October​ ​2017.

“Our​ ​Mission​ ​Statement.”​ ​The​ ​United​ ​States​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,

https://www.justice.gov/about​.​ ​Accessed​ ​1​ ​October​ ​2017.

“Zarda​ ​v.​ ​Altitude​ ​Express.”​ ​Lambda​ ​Legal​,

https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/zarda-v-altitude-express​.​ ​Accessed​ ​1​ ​October​ ​2017.