![\"jeff](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.towleroad.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/sessions.jpeg?resize=740%2C388\")
<\/p>\nTrump Administration Tells Court That Discrimination Against Gay Workers is Legal<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, Lawyers for the Trump administration argued that discrimination against gay<\/a> workers is legal.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Department of Justice<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Equal Employment Opportunity Commission<\/a>\u00a0(EEOC) faced off against each other in\u00a0Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.,<\/em> a case concerning a man<\/a> who was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor because of his sexual orientation.<\/p>\n According to\u00a0Freedom For All Americans<\/b><\/a>\u00a0(FFAF), the en banc hearing (meaning before the full 2nd Circuit court) is a rare phenomenon and a strong indicator of the case\u2019s significance. The court is set to reconsider a 17-year-old legal precedent stating that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited under federal law.<\/p>\n Bloomberg reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers\u2019 intent, and Congress didn\u2019t have the LGBT community in mind when it crafted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan argued on Tuesday in Manhattan. The agency made its case in defense of a New York skydiving company accused of firing a worker for being gay<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cEvery circuit court for 50 years has said this isn\u2019t covered,\u201d Mooppan said at the hearing in Manhattan, referring to sexual orientation.\u00a0He then compared the situation to an employer firing a worker for having an affair or being promiscuous, scenarios that he said have both been deemed legal.<\/p>\n The NYT adds<\/a>:<\/p>\n A lawyer for the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jeremy Horowitz, sided with the sky diver, arguing that federal law did prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because they are gay<\/a>.<\/p>\n But a deputy assistant attorney general with the Justice Department, Hashim M. Mooppan, explained that, under federal law, employers were absolutely free \u201cto regulate employees\u2019 off-the-job sexual behavior,\u201d meaning they could discriminate against employees for adultery, promiscuity or sexual orientation.<\/p>\n Even as the judges were struggling with the underlying legal question, they seemed unsure of what to make of the two government lawyers, each vigorously arguing opposite points.<\/p>\n Writes Mark Joseph Stern at Slate<\/a>:<\/p>\n When arguments concluded, it seemed inevitable that the court would agree with the EEOC, reject the DOJ\u2019s wackadoodle theories, and find that Title VII already proscribes anti-gay<\/a> employment discrimination. After Tuesday\u2019s performance, the Justice Department\u2019s involvement in the case may have actually swung a judge or two away from its position; its flagrantly political intrusion seemed to irk even the Republican appointees. Anti-gay<\/a> activists may have taken control of the DOJ\u2014but they seem unlikely to persuade the 2nd<\/sup>Circuit that America\u2019s gay<\/a> employees don\u2019t deserve civil rights.<\/p>\n The post Trump Administration Tells Court That Discrimination Against Gay Workers is Legal<\/a> appeared first on Towleroad<\/a>.<\/p>\n