观点：SCOTUS应该保护LGBTQ工人。 但是会吗？

图片由iStock/dkfielding提供

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced that it would review three cases that could decide whether the ban on discrimination based on sex in 第七条 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 虽然结果不确定，但法院应该从更广泛的角度看待第七章所包含的保护，并认为该法案禁止基于性取向和性别认同的歧视。 如果做不到这一点，争取平等权利的斗争就会倒退，并进一步削弱公众对法院维护所有美国人权利的能力的信任。

第七章禁止基于种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍的就业歧视。 在最初颁布后的许多年里，法院拒绝将第七章禁止基于性别的歧视扩展到基于个人性取向或性别认同的歧视。 In 2017, however, in 海弗利诉常春藤科技社区学院案, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by 第七条. In reaching its decision, the seventh circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in 普华永道诉霍普金斯案. 在那起案件中，最高法院裁定，一名被建议“化妆、做发型、戴首饰”的女雇员遭受了性别歧视，违反了第七章。 在这样做时，最高法院认为性别定型观念违反了第七章禁止基于性别的歧视的规定。 The seventh circuit applied that reasoning to sexual orientation–based discrimination, stating that the plaintiff in 蜂巢 “represents the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype…: she is not heterosexual.”

The seventh circuit also looked to 爱的诉Virginia, the Supreme Court case striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. In 爱的, the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause because of its denial of an individual’s right to associate with another person because of that person’s race. 同样，第七巡回法院认为，基于雇员想要交往的人的性别而歧视雇员，构成了违反第七章的基于性别的歧视。

Moreover, in r.g.r.哈里斯殡仪馆诉平等就业机会委员会案, a 2018 case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that 第七条 prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. 在一起涉及跨性别雇员的案件中，法院发现，基于跨性别身份的歧视是基于“性别刻板印象”的歧视。 法院还发现，基于员工变性身份的歧视“至少部分是由员工的性别引起的”。

While the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit adopted the seventh circuit’s view in 扎尔达诉海拔快车案, in 博斯托克诉克莱顿县委员会案, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 第七条 does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. 第十一巡回法院依赖于先前的判决，认为第七章不适用于基于性取向的歧视，主要是考虑到第七章通过时国会的意图。 由于联邦上诉法院之间的冲突，最高法院批准对第二、第六和第十一巡回法院的案件进行复审，这些案件直接提出了第七章适用于基于性取向和性别认同的歧视案件的问题。

最高法院将如何裁决此案？ Beginning with 罗默诉埃文斯案 in 1996, the Supreme Court has decided a number of decisions protecting the rights of gay and lesbian Americans. In 罗默, the court held that an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prohibited all legislative, executive, or judicial action designed to protect gay or lesbian people violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause. In 2003, in 劳伦斯诉德克萨斯州案, the Supreme Court held that a Texas law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In 2013, in 美国诉温莎案, the court held that the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriages, violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Finally, in 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry.

所有这些最高法院的判决都有一个共同点——都是由现已退休的大法官安东尼·肯尼迪撰写的。 Moreover, both 温莎 and Obergefell were decided by 5 to 4 decisions, with Justice Kennedy joined by the four more liberal justices—Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. 肯尼迪大法官被布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）大法官取代，卡瓦诺的选择主要是因为他的保守派资历。 虽然目前围绕第七章范围的争议涉及的法律问题与最高法院先前涉及性取向的案件不同，但其基本原则是相互交织的。 那些认为第七章保护人们免受性取向和性别认同歧视的法院已经从这些早期的最高法院案例中寻求指导。 但现在法院会怎么做呢？

基于保守派法官对个人权利的广泛观点的敌意，以及他们在涉及LGBT公民权利的案件中的反对意见，保守派多数很可能会决定，第七章并不禁止基于性取向或性别认同的歧视。 毕竟，在1964年，当第七章颁布时，国会可能没有考虑是否将LGBT美国人纳入其保护范围。 事实上，一些历史学家认为，将“性”一词添加到《第七章》所赋予的保护中，是为了扼杀该法案。 最后，与奥巴马政府的立场相反，特朗普领导的平等就业机会委员会（Equal Employment Opportunity Commission）认为，第七章并不禁止基于性别认同的歧视。

另一方面，有广泛解读第七章的先例。 In addition to the Supreme Court’s recognition of sex stereotyping as a form of sex-based discrimination, in Oncale诉Sundowner海上服务公司案, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, held that 第七条 prohibits same-sex sexual harassment. 最后，对该法案的简单解读有力地支持了对该法案的广义解释。 歧视一个渴望与自己性别的人，似乎是直接因为她的性别而歧视她。 如果一个男人想和一个女人搭档，他不会受到歧视，但如果一个女人想和一个女人搭档，她会受到歧视。

目前，包括马萨诸塞州在内的21个州禁止基于性取向和性别认同的就业歧视。 然而，大多数州并不保护LGBT公民在就业方面不受歧视。 这些州的LGBT人群没有任何保护措施，不会因为他们的性取向或性别认同而被解雇或降职。 出于这个原因，最高法院如何处理这个问题会影响数百万美国人。

罗伯特·沃尔克 (LAW’78), a School of Law associate professor of legal writing, can be reached at rvolk@bu.edu.

“POV” is an 意见页面 that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact Rich Barlow at barlowr@bu.edu. 但是今天 保留拒绝或编辑提交的权利。 所表达的观点仅代表作者的观点，并不代表波士顿大学的观点。