.png)
A former skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, accuses the Altitude Express Inc. that they fired him because he told a customer he was gay and the costumer complained.
Supported by the U.S. Department of Justice the New York skydiving company has required from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether discrimination against gay workers is a form of unlawful sex bias under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been arguing with the Federal Appeals courts for five years that prejudice against homosexual workers violates Title VII of American Civil Rights which bans discrimination based on worker’s sex, race, religion and other traits. So far only one Federal Appeals Court has agreed with their petition.
In 2014, after filling his lawsuit, the wingsuit diver, Donald Zarda died in a BASE jumping accident in Swiss Alps. Therefore on Tuesday hearing behalf Zarda’s case will appear the EECO.
The Trump Administration on Tuesday in Zarda’s state hearing will urge a U.S. appeals court in Manhattan to decide that federal law does not ban discrimination against homosexual workers.
We point out that last month, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum addressing the US military to refuse to recruit transgenders.
Major companies of USA, including Alphabet Inc’s, Google, Microsoft Corp, and CBS Corp, asked the 2nd Circuit to rule in favor of Zarda.
The Zarda case of Tuesday is crucial because his victory would increase the chances of the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Days ago a former hospital guard in Georgia, has asked the Supreme Court to review a decision that rejected her case, in which she claims she was harassed because she is gay.
A three-judge 2nd Circuit panel in April had dismissed the Zarda’s case, based on a prior ruling that said, discrimination against homosexual workers is not a form of sexual bias.
Weeks later, the Chicago appeal court ruled that Title VII protects homosexual workers, forcing the Supreme Court in Manhattan to agree on reconsidering the Zarda case, hopping to overturn the prior decision.
