WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) led a bicameral letter signed by more than 60 lawmakers to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, challenging a Department of Justice (DOJ) brief arguing that the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect LGBT Americans from discrimination in the workplace.
The brief was filed last month in the case of Zarda v. Altitude Express and directly contradicts the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, several federal district courts, and most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which have all concluded that the Civil Rights Act does indeed extend to discrimination against LGBT Americans in the workplace.
“The Department of Justice’s decision to weigh in on the Zarda case is not only incredibly disappointing, but contrary to existing law,” the Senators wrote. “We urge the Department of Justice to reverse its position and to refrain from arguing against protections for LGBT people in any future Title VII cases dealing with the issue of whether sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Senators Booker, Merkley, and Baldwin and Representative Cicilline authored the Equality Act, reintroduced earlier this year, which clarifies that federal law bans discrimination against LGBT Americans in a host of areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit, and federal funding.
Today’s letter was also signed by the following members of Congress:
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI).
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Rep. Alan Lowenthal
Rep. Donald Norcross
Rep. William R. Keating
Reo. Diana DeGette
Rep. Derek Kilmer
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. Sandy Levin
Rep. Ro Khanna
Rep. Scott Peters
Rep. Josh Gottheimer
Rep. Kathleen Rice
Rep. Linda T. Sanchez
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez
Rep. Pete Aguilar
Rep. Bill Foster
Rep. Daniel T. Kildee
Rep. Juan Vargas
Rep. Joe Crowley
Rep. Yvette D. Clarke
Rep. Hank Johnson
Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Rep. Jacky Rosen
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. Betty McCollum
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. John Lewis
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
Rep. Dwight Evans
Rep. Tom O’Halleran
Rep. Julia Brownley
Rep. Salud Carbajal
Rep. Kathy Castor
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter
Rep. Donald McEachin
Rep. Donald M. Payne
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch
Rep. Dina Titus
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney
Rep. Rick Larsen
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa
Rep. Alma Adams
Rep. Andre Carson
Rep. Jackie Speier
The full text of the letter is below:
August 7, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION:
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20540
Dear Attorney General Sessions:
We write to you to express deep disappointment regarding the brief the Department of Justice filed in the case of Zarda v. Altitude Express, which is pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect lesbian, gay, bisexual people from discrimination. We believe this action is not only contrary to existing law, but violates our nation’s ideals of liberty and justice for all.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to better protect Americans who have historically been vulnerable and marginalized. It enshrined the idea that Martin Luther King, Jr. stated so well that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Since then, our country has made incredible progress in working towards protecting the rights of all people, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we still have a ways to go.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 precludes employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—the federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII’s provisions and other employment non-discrimination laws—interprets that section to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, based on a growing body of caselaw. In fact, several federal district courts and, most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have properly concluded that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination is understood to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. This reflects a growing consensus that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation cannot be understood without reference to sex. To argue the opposite defies any reasonable interpretation of what sex discrimination means.
The Department of Justice’s decision to weigh in on the Zarda case is not only incredibly disappointing, but contrary to existing law. Additionally, it comes on the heels of President Trump’s announcement earlier in the day that transgender people will no longer be able to serve their country in the military—a decision that weakens the U.S. Armed Forces. Any discrimination is completely unacceptable. It tears at the fabric of our great nation and does not move us forward; it takes us backward. We urge the Department of Justice to reverse its position and to refrain from arguing against protections for LGBT people in any future Title VII cases dealing with the issue of whether sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sincerely,