Mikki Gillette of Basic Rights Oregon and US Senator Jeff Merkley spoke about today's Supreme Court hearings on LGBTQ+ employment rights at a press conference.
Mikki Gillette of Basic Rights Oregon and US Senator Jeff Merkley spoke about today's Supreme Court hearings on LGBTQ+ employment rights at a press conference. DOUG BROWN / ACLU OF OREGON

The US Supreme Court is hearing three significant cases Tuesday concerning LGBTQ+ discrimination. While Oregon state law won’t be affected by the rulings, Oregon leaders are taking the opportunity to explain why federal anti-discrimination protections are so important.

The three cases involve three LGBTQ+ people—a gay man from Georgia, a gay man from New York, and a transgender women from Michigan—who were fired from their respective jobs because of their identities. The Supreme Court will consider whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment discrimination “on the basis of sex,” should cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the federal level and in 26 states, there is currently no legal protection against employment discrimination for LGBTQ+ people. Oregon, however, does guarantee that right under the 2007 Oregon Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) was one of the key advocacy groups behind the passage of the Oregon Equality Act, which Executive Director Nancy Haque said, “ensures dignity and respect, no matter who we are or who we love,” at a press conference Tuesday morning.

“The law should be on our side,” Haque added. “Many federal courts and agencies have long held that firing someone simply because they’re transgender, gay, lesbian, or bisexual is unlawful discrimination. … The current patchwork of laws across the country is unfair and unworkable. It leaves too many behind.”

US Senator Jeff Merkley attended the morning press conference. Merkley was Speaker of the Oregon House in 2007, where he championed the passage of the Oregon Equality Act. Since joining the Senate in 2009, Merkley has fought for LGBTQ+ protections at the federal level. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a federal version of Oregon’s law, which is sponsored by Merkley. But Merkley said he hasn’t been able to convince Republican leadership to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate, and he doesn’t expect that to change until Democrats become the Senate majority.

“Once again," Merkley said, "elections will make a difference."

A Supreme Court decision that sexual orientation and gender identity is covered by Title VII would ensure that all LGBTQ+ Americans are entitled to employment protections. But though proponents of that outcome believe the law is on their side, they also warn that the Supreme Court might not view the issue the same way—and that an anti-LGBTQ+ ruling could open the door for other forms of discrimination. Under the direction of Donald Trump, the US Department of Justice submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing against LGBTQ+ employment rights.

“The Trump administration has joined with anti-LGBTQ groups, and taken his war against transgender people to the highest court,” said Kelly Simon, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Oregon, at the press conference. “If the Supreme Court rules against LGBTQ people, it will give the president and other anti-LGBTQ people in power a license to take even more dangerous actions to deny us other civil rights—like the right to equal health care, education, and housing.”

One of the three cases concerns Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who transitioned while working at a funeral home in Michigan. Stephens’ boss fired her because he did not want her to start wearing women's clothing at work. Stephens’ case is historic for being the first transgender rights case to make it before the Supreme Court—but as Simon pointed out, the outcome of her case could potentially affect not just LGBTQ+ people, but any employee who does not conform to their boss’ expectations of gender presentation.

Lawyers representing Stephens’ employer are arguing that “employers should be allowed to fire people just for not looking, dressing, or acting masculine or feminine enough for their liking,” Simon said.

ACLU of Oregon Staff Attorney Kelly Simon, wearing an impeccable suit, speaks about how Aimee Stephens Supreme Court case could affect any employees who do not meet their employers expectations of gender expression.
ACLU of Oregon Staff Attorney Kelly Simon, wearing an impeccable suit, speaks about how Aimee Stephens' Supreme Court case could affect any employees who do not meet their employers' expectations of gender expression. DOUG BROWN / ACLU OF OREGON

Mikki Gillette, BRO’s major gifts officer, has experienced her own workplace discrimination. Gillette was a substitute teacher in Vancouver, Washington in 2011 when a group of local parents tried to get her fired for being transgender. Gillette was protected by Washington’s anti-discrimination law, which is similar to Oregon’s.

“Without those protections, my story would likely have been different,” Gillette said. “The district leadership may have capitulated to an intolerant vocal minority, and I may have lost my job like Aimee Stevens.”

Merkley said he will continue pushing for the Equality Act even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of LGBTQ+ rights, so as to add an extra layer of federal protection and make it more difficult for the policy to be overturned in the future. He said the Supreme Court cases and his bill are “taking both paths simultaneously towards a vision of equality, opportunity, and freedom.”

As she wrapped up her remarks at Tuesday’s press conference, BRO’s Nancy Haque had a message for all LGBTQ+ people listening.

“We know what’s at stake in this fight,” Haque said. “We’ve seen it and lived it for so long, and we’re going to keep fighting no matter what the outcome is at the Supreme Court. They are not deciding on our humanity today—they are deciding their own.”