|
gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:legal_case
|
|
gptkbp:advocates_for
|
gptkb:2018
|
|
gptkbp:case_types
|
gptkb:political_movement
17-3622
Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
|
|
gptkbp:consequences
|
Civil rights protections
|
|
gptkbp:court
|
gptkb:Second_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals
gptkb:Second_Circuit
|
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
2020-06-15
|
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
Zarda
|
|
gptkbp:impact
|
Employment law
|
|
gptkbp:involves
|
Employment discrimination
|
|
gptkbp:judging_criteria
|
In favor of Zarda
|
|
gptkbp:judicial_review
|
gptkb:legal_case
|
|
gptkbp:legal_representation
|
gptkb:Lambda_Legal
|
|
gptkbp:notable_event
|
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
|
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
Title VII protections
Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal
Favorable to LGBTQ+ rights
Protected class status
Title VII applies to sexual orientation
|
|
gptkbp:party
|
gptkb:Donald_Zarda
|
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
gptkb:Bostock_v._Clayton_County
Employment discrimination cases
Bostock ruling
|
|
gptkbp:published_year
|
2010-03-01
|
|
gptkbp:related_to
|
gptkb:Bostock_v._Clayton_County
|
|
gptkbp:significance
|
Landmark ruling
Sexual orientation discrimination
Title VII interpretation
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:Power_Princess
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
4
|