[新聞] 《經濟學人》美國最高法院捍衛LGBT工作權已回收

看板Gossiping作者ejrq5785 (ejrq5785)時間6年前 (2020/06/21 14:05)推噓6(6推 0噓 5→)

留言11則, 9人參與討論串1/2 (看更多)

1.媒體來源:The Economist 2.記者署名:The Economist 3.完整新聞標題: America’s Supreme Court protects LGBT workers against discrimination 美國最高法院替LGBT團體捍衛工作權 A momentous 6-3 ruling 一個具里程意義的6比3判決 4.完整新聞內文: https://imgur.com/3iNdbfd

When anthony kennedy retired in 2018, gay-rights supporters fretted over the loss of a justice who had anchored four expansions of gay and lesbian rights. With his replacement by the more conservative Brett Kavanaugh, and President Donald Trump’s appointment of Neil Gorsuch 18 months earlier, lgbt activists worried the progress would come to a halt. On June 15th the Supreme Court allayed those fears with a momentous decision that protects gay and transgender people against discrimination in the workplace. 當安東尼甘迺迪大法官於2018年退休之時，同性平權支持者擔憂失去了一個曾四次支持 LGBT權利的大法官。他被更保守的布雷特·卡瓦諾大法官所取代，就在川普任命尼爾·戈蘇奇的18個月後， LGBT團體擔心爭取平權的進程將會停滯。 6月15最高法院以一個旅程碑的判決捍衛了同性戀者與跨性別者於工作場合的也應受平等對待，這個判決消弭了LGBT者的憂慮。 By a 6-3 margin, the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—a provision that bars discrimination “because of” a number of characteristics including “sex”—prohibits firing or disfavouring workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The majority view was penned by Justice Gorsuch. 最高法院以6比3多數同意1964年的民權法案第7章中有關禁止雇主以人格特質，尤其是性傾向、性別認同的原因解雇員工。多數意見是由大法官Gorsuch所主筆。 Roughly half of America’s states have laws of their own protecting gay and trans workers; the rest do not. So until the latest decision, known as Bostock v Clayton County, an employee in much of America could legally marry a member of the same sex over the weekend and be legally sacked for being gay when returning to work. Now some 8.1m lgbt workers across America will enjoy federal protection from discrimination when they clock in. 在美國有過半的州都有制定保護同性戀者工作權的法律，但也有許多州並沒有。直到目前最新的Bostock v Clayton County案作出前，同性戀雖可在假日合法結婚，但是一等到他們回到職場，能因同性戀為由而被解雇。現在全國約有810萬LGBT工作者能享有聯邦法律反歧視的保護。 At the oral arguments last October, Justice Gorsuch leaned towards the lgbt plaintiffs’ view. But he feared that a win for them might herald “massive social upheaval”. Now, as author of the majority opinion (attracting the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and the four more liberal justices), his worries seem to have vanished. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role ” in an employer’s decision to fire a worker for being gay or transgender, he wrote, and that is “exactly what Title VII forbids”. 在去年10月的言詞辯論中，大法官Gorsuch偏向LGBT原告的立場，但他擔心判決結果會引起「社會動盪」。但現在看來，他主筆的多數意見（還吸引到首席大法官Roberts的票，與其他四位自由派大法官）他的擔心看來是多慮了。他在多數意見中指出：「性別」在雇主決定是否解僱同性戀或跨性別員工時扮演了一個必要且無可忽視的因素，而這正是第7 章所禁止的事。 The matter was simple, he contended, involving “the straightforward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings”. A host of Supreme Court precedents stand for the same principle. These include discrimination against mothers, sexual harassment against men and other types of workplace bias Congress may not have contemplated in 1964. No one might have imagined back then that Title VII would prohibit a boss from firing gay or trans workers because of their identity, but “major initiatives” like a civil-rights law often have “unexpected consequences”. 他宣稱，本案爭點是很單純的，僅涉及了如何適用已無爭議且白話的法律術語而已。最高法院一系列的先例都支持這些原則，例如對於婦女的歧視、對抗來自男性的騷擾以及其他國會可能在1964年沒想到的職場歧視。無人可在1964年立法時預測到日後雇主會以性別認同來解僱一個同性戀者或跨性別者，但認和重大的法律案例如民權法案，往往都能產生未預期的效果。 Justice Kavanaugh wrote a dissent admonishing the majority for legislating from the bench. “[W]e are judges,” he wrote, “not members of Congress.” For the more vituperative Justice Samuel Alito (joined in dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas), the “radical” result in Bostock is based on “preposterous ” reasoning. Although the majority invokes the late Justice Antonin Scalia’ s teaching that judges should pay heed only to the words of a statute, Justice Alito wrote, “no one should be fooled” by the ruling. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is “like a pirate ship” sailing “under a textualist flag ” but silently “updat[ing] old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society”. Kavanaugh大法官在不同意見書勸多數意見別以大法官之位創設法律，他寫道：我們是法官，並非國會議員，用詞更強烈的Samuel Alito大法官，他的不同意見書被 Clarence Thomas加入，他寫道：多數意見的推論是荒謬的，他認為雖然多數意見有謹遵已故的 Scalia大法官的教誨，即大法官應注重文本，而「沒有人應該被判決玩弄」，他說主筆 Gorsuch的觀點就像是打著「文本主義」的旗子的海盜船但卻偷偷置換了最初的文字概念以符合最新社會價值。 What are the broader implications of the ruling for lgbt rights? It depends whom you ask. Justice Gorsuch left open whether employers with religious objections to the gender identity or sexuality of their workers may one day claim an exemption from anti-discrimination laws. But his erstwhile concern about social upheaval is nowhere to be found in the majority opinion. Bostock is just about workplace rights, he wrote, not “sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms and dress codes”. The court does not “prejudge” these questions. 本案對LGBT團體更深遠的含義為何？這個問題要看你問誰，對於雇主的宗教信仰是否將與員工的性別認同或者性傾向產生衝突而豁免於反歧視法，對此Gorsuch大法官持開放態度。但他過去對於社會動盪的看法並沒有寫入多數意見中。他寫道，本案僅是關於工作權的問題，與什麼「區分性別的廁所」或者「更衣室或著裝規範」等問題無關，法官不會預斷這些問題。 Justice Alito’s 54-page jeremiad berated the majority for failing to grapple with the potential implications. Many federal laws bar sex discrimination, and the majority’s “brusque refusal” to contemplate how they will be altered by the Bostock ruling is “irresponsible”. What about transgender employees challenging health plans that “do not cover costly sex-reassignment surgery”? Or women who have suffered sexual assault, for whom viewing “the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm”? Or a transgender person’s desire to compete in a sporting “competition previously reserved for members of one biological sex”? 而Alito大法官在他那長達54頁的反對意見中怒斥多數意見不顧後果，他指出聯邦法律中有許多反性別歧視條款，而多數意見草率地拒絕思考本案將如何影響那些條款是不負責的，他舉例，如果一位跨性別受雇者挑戰健保條例沒有給付高額的性別重置所述該如何？或者一位曾受性侵的婦女在密閉或私密空間如浴室或者更衣室看到「男性生殖器」更可能造成更大的心理傷害。或者一位跨型別者想要參加一個以生物女性為主的運動比賽時該如何？ Religious conservatives who helped elect Mr Trump and were cheered by his Supreme Court picks are shocked by Justice Gorsuch’s defection from the cause. Their dismay may do little to soften evangelicals’ support for Mr Trump in November, but the decision to stand up for gay and trans rights may undermine several of his administration’s policies targeting lgbt people. A recently announced regulatory change allowing doctors to deny health care to trans people under the Affordable Care Act is now under a cloud, as are moves to allow adoption agencies to shut out same-sex couples and let school districts discriminate against trans students. 許多之前投給川普，以及支持他的大法官提名的宗教保守主義者對於Gorsuch大法官在本案的“跑票”感到意外。他們的失望可能不會影響福音派的人在11月對川普的支持，但本案一定會影響川普政府幾項對於LGBT人事的政策。最近一項新法規使一是可以依據[付得起照護]法案拒絕提供醫療服務給跨型別者，以及允許收養機構也可拒絕同性伴侶，還有讓學校能對跨性別學生進行區別對待等等現在都蒙上一塵陰影。 For now, Bostock seems bound to serve conservatives with an example of two justices playing against type to burnish the image of the Supreme Court as a fair-minded tribunal. Chief Justice Roberts is particularly keen to rescue justices from the charge that they are merely politicians in robes. In 1989 Scalia joined the liberal side of the court to strike down a law banning flag-burning. That was his exhibit a of how his jurisprudence was rooted in law, not personal ideology. Justice Gorsuch, Scalia’s successor, now has a similar landmark. ■ 本案必定會被保守派人士當成兩位大法官為了博取最高法院公正性而跑票的例子之一首席大法官Roberts特別想要洗刷大法官僅是穿著法袍的政客形象。在1989年scalia大法官加入了自由派陣營，幫助了宣告焚燒國旗案宣告違憲，那是他展現個人法理學高過於個人意識形態的展現，而現在Gorsuch大法官，也是Scalia的繼任者，似乎也達到同樣的里程碑。 5.完整新聞連結 (或短網址): https://tinyurl.com/y9y3te9v 6.備註: --

→

realtw:

11/16 14:19,

11/16 14:19

→

realtw:

11/16 14:19,

11/16 14:19

→

realtw:

11/16 14:21,

11/16 14:21