<div class='mailmunch-forms-before-post' style='display: none !important;'></div><div class="story-body-supplemental">
<div class="story-body story-body-1">
<p data-para-count="210" data-total-count="210">Help support our efforts by checking out this great offer &#8211;</p>
<p><iframe style="border: none;" src="//rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?o=1&;p=288&;l=ur1&;category=hol_sz_s30_4q_17&;banner=0H04BHCRRPTQG9QZJG02&;f=ifr&;linkID=554c019ad8e3f4fca6ef77aec4ebf345&;t=hescotusrepor-20&;tracking_id=hescotusrepor-20" width="320" height="50" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p><script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> 
<ins class="adsbygoogle" 
 style="display:block; text-align:center;" 
 data-ad-layout="in-article" 
 data-ad-format="fluid" 
 data-ad-client="ca-pub-5175198302130341" 
 data-ad-slot="9182933377"></ins> 
<script> 
 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 
</script>
<p data-para-count="210" data-total-count="210"><strong>Today in Washington</strong>, the Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal that would prohibit possible employers from discrimination against gay and lesbian workers.</p>
<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="210" data-total-count="210">The case in question came from Jameka Evans who sued a Georgia Hospital for &#8220;discrimination&#8221; because of her being sexual orientation as a lesbian. Evans sued on the belief that her Civil Rights had been violated.</p><div class='mailmunch-forms-in-post-middle' style='display: none !important;'></div>
<p data-para-count="210" data-total-count="210">There have been two separate appeals in this case with conflicting decisions. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1404204555/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&;camp=1789&;creative=9325&;creativeASIN=1404204555&;linkCode=am2&;tag=hescotusrepor-20&;linkId=ad94d1e4b7af0977ae58d2f57ead5e5f" target="_blank" rel="noopener">One ruling favored Civil Rights</a><img style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=hescotusrepor-20&;l=am2&;o=1&;a=1404204555" alt="" width="1" height="1" border="0" /> protecting those based on their sexual preference. The second court ruled sexual preference was not a reason for protection under Civil Rights protections. These split decisions can occasionally rise to the Supreme Court level, however, this case did not reach that mark.</p>
<p>Some interesting points to this case &#8211; the Administration/Government argued both for and against Title VII being used to protect those based on sexual orientation. A lawyer from the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Commission argued for protection while A Justice Department attorney argued against. The Justice Department had filed a brief in July stating to the Second Circuit that the EEO commission was “not speaking for the United States.”</p>
</div>
</div>
<p data-para-count="210" data-total-count="210">There are more cases on the horizon similar to this, that may eventually be decided by the Justices and the Supreme Court.</p>
<div class="story-body-supplemental"></div>
<div class="story-body-supplemental"></div>
</p><div class='mailmunch-forms-after-post' style='display: none !important;'></div></p><p class="wpsai_spacing_before_adsense"></p> 

Do Civil Rights protect sexual orientation? Knocking on the door of the Supreme Court. (please retweet)
