"Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an
employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex. For example, assume that an
employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her
desk, but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on his
desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse
action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a
legitimate claim under Title VII that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse
employment action. See Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711
(1978) (“Such a practice does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows
‘treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’”). The
same result holds true if the person discriminated against is straight. Assume a woman is
suspended because she has placed a picture of her husband on her desk but her gay colleague is
not suspended after he places a picture of his husband on his desk. The straight female
employee could bring a cognizable Title VII claim of disparate treatment because of sex."
Ace. This is what you are talking about. I am still reading but this portion right here is now extending the same protection of sex to heteros as well as homos. So if they go on to confer it to gay men than it becomes available to straight men as well.
employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex. For example, assume that an
employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her
desk, but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on his
desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse
action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a
legitimate claim under Title VII that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse
employment action. See Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711
(1978) (“Such a practice does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows
‘treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’”). The
same result holds true if the person discriminated against is straight. Assume a woman is
suspended because she has placed a picture of her husband on her desk but her gay colleague is
not suspended after he places a picture of his husband on his desk. The straight female
employee could bring a cognizable Title VII claim of disparate treatment because of sex."
Ace. This is what you are talking about. I am still reading but this portion right here is now extending the same protection of sex to heteros as well as homos. So if they go on to confer it to gay men than it becomes available to straight men as well.
