Transcript for Supreme Court to hear three LGBT discrimination cases
These are really the case a lot of people watch him from one is ought to bring any guest now here at the Supreme Court Sharon. I'm a gallon as the chief strategy officer and legal director and Lambda legal shark great to see if there are common in a leading. I advocate for LG BT persons or where it's group in this country so. Help us understand these cases these are these are pretty great big deal to involving. A gay individuals from one involving transgender Americans. That's right and and just to take about what you talked about the question that's actually before the Supreme Court is whether the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination a lot of his forty on the books. Actually protects people when they are discriminated against either for being trends desert the meaning of sale is that the meaning of sex and in many ways it's also about the meaning of the cause of red that's the statue because of sex. An argument is that when I going to my employer and they are willing to hire me when they know that I'm married to a man but not willing to marry me if I'm married to a woman. That's because of sex right if I am in an employment. Place and I have transitioned and my employer wanted me when they thought that my history was one way but now the sun they found that that I had a gender transition. Nothing about me has changed other than your perception of my sex and so our view is that the federal law that we have authority provides this protection and an overwhelming number of courts. Have actually agree with that position there been some that have not and so that is the question right now that is teed up for the. And tell us about some of the characters in this case is some fascinating human stories here I think a lot of people might be surprised when the it actually takes place this explicitly. Say in both stock case durable stock was was was fired at from beach as a child welfare services coordinator in Georgia was explicitly told. We don't employ people like you. Here that's right and we importantly still hot places in the country where the discrimination is that explicit right we had Gerald fox sex case. We have Daniels artist case unfortunately Daniel passed a rod and thank Donald Florida and he passed away but in that case it was truly a function of him revealing that he had a boyfriend rather girlfriend and that resulted in losing his job. And then ended and peace and bombing this question of transgender coverage Amy Stevens served as a funeral director. But when her employer learn that that she was transitioning to live as the woman that she is. All of a sudden they no longer wanted her in that position so we have really blatant cases of discrimination and many many courts have just understood. That this is precisely the kind of discrimination that federal law should already reach. And so you know once again we are hopeful that the Supreme Court we'll just look at the words on the statute and realize that because of sex meanwhile as it means what it says. And LG BT people who X discrimination because of their sex have protection under the law. And host. It's an already taken an extra step have said that they want to be more explicitly state law because there's a concern that the federal life doesn't spell it out in didn't. In more blatant terms why is there that discrimination and and how common is that how many states have had taken us some extra steps so more than half of the states now. Actually had explicit protections on the basis of sexual education in gender identity and your right in many ways it sort of it's a belt and suspenders approach it making sure that it is explicit that employers know Ann Compton state and local laws actually capture employers that are smaller than the employers that would be covered by federal law but in this case you part of what we're trying to make clear is that we do actually having national federal civil rights law. And it shouldn't matter whether you live in Indiana with a law currently does cover you or in Missouri with a loss currently does not you know so we wanted to make sure that the Supreme Court. Understand yeah. Is really in many ways and Mary Miller Casey conservative argument we're not acting the court to change the meaning of anything we're asking him to look at the words in the statute. I understand that this happens to be a factual scenario that applies as well. And so the conservatives we expect during or oral arguments which will take place next year next fall sometime in October so we have a little bit of away. One of the arguments I would expect will be paid if congress wants to protect people from discrimination of his sexual orientation right it into the law. Make it clear make it exposed there is actually an effort afoot right by house Democrats and others the equality act. To do just that. No that's right the bloody act is currently pending the equality act is actually written in a way to make clear. That congress is intending tech clarify that sex discrimination protections actually cover this kind of discrimination as well. But you know the great late. Conservatives that just this Galena was the one who actually gave us the decision in the late 1990s saying. We aren't we're not considered intuit what congress may or may not admit we're gonna look at the words of the statute and the words of the statute actually cover the discrimination that appears in court. That's covered and so in many ways you this is an argument. That really should have appeal across the political spectrum Jeremy gallon with Lambda legal thank you so much for coming over Sharon great to see hope to have you back when those cases get hurt in the fall they academy.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.