Introduction to Law and Dispute Resolution/Chapters 1,6 and Appendix A – Article VII – Amendments I-XIV

FACTS: Same-sex marriagesLinks to an external site. are now legally recognized in the United StatesLinks to an external site. via the fairly recent U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S.____ (June 26, 2015), 134 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (Also see text p. 126). A new emerging legal issue on gender discrimination is the right of individuals who identify as transgender. One major issue affecting businesses and institutions (schools and colleges, etc.) in this country is the right of transgemders to participate in activities and use public bathrooms based on their gender identification. The former President Trump Administration reversed President Obama’s directive or executive orders that allow transgenders to use bathrooms based on their gender identification in public schools, college’s and public areas in general. President Trump also tweeted a ban on transgender individuals from serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. Despite the above White House actions, President Trump made a public statement that transgender individuals should be able to use a bathroom they feel comfortable with. Businesses and institutions around the country are now very confused and uncertain about what steps to take with providing public bathroom use for transgender employees and individuals in general. However, the new President, Joe Biden, and his administration reversed former President Trump’s executive orders on developing transgender issues. Andrew and Robin (both biological females) were married in Washington, D.C. Andrew identifies as a man therefore Andrew’s gender preference is a male. Barbara and Donald (both biological males) were married in Massachusetts. Barbara identifies as a female therefore Barbara’s gender preference is a female. Andrew and Barbara want to eliminate gender discrimination in bathroom or restroom use at the company and make all public and private bathrooms for unisex use or gender neutral. If the company is not willing to change to a non-gender/gender neutral or unisex restroom policy, then Andrew wants permission to use the “Men’s” bathroom or restroom at work and Barbara wants permission to use the “Women’s” restroom or bathroom at the company. Both Andrew and Barbara are Virginia residents where same sex marriages are now legal based on the United States Supreme Court decision above. A local ordinance and a Virginia State Statute prohibits a biological man from entering and using a biological female bathroom or restroom and a biological female from entering and using a bathroom or restroom for biological males. Both Andrew and Barbara, as employees, were prohibited from using the bathroom of their preference or gender identity before the U.S. Supreme Court decision. Otherwise, the company refused to allow them to use the bathroom or restroom of the opposite biological sex. Both Andrew and Barbara sue the company to recognize their gender identification or preference as an intimate fundamental right and to challenge the Virginia local ordinance and Statute prohibiting them to use the bathroom or restroom of their preference as unconstitutional in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. In essence, gender discrimination for public and private bathroom use is unconstitutional pursuant to the Virginia and United States Constitution and the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S.____ (June 26, 2015) against gender discrimination for obtaining a marriage license and legalizing same sex marriages. The local courts held in favor of the employer’s gender discrimination bathroom policy for public and private use. The Virginia Supreme Court held the local ordinance and the Virginia Statute Constitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenges the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court by filing a lawsuit in a Virginia Federal District Court. (The ACLU cited HR-5 Equality Act of 2019). The Virginia Federal District Court held the Virginia local ordinance and state statute unconstitutional. The State of Virginia filed an appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit Appellate Court upholds the Federal District Court decision. The State of Virginia filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Virginia local ordinance and Statute prohibiting members of the opposite sex to use the same bathrooms or restrooms in the State of Virginia is Constitutional via the 10th Amendment based on a State’s right to protect the citizens and public in Virginia based on public safety and health. The United States Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari and agrees to hear the case. Post your answer(s) directly into the Discussion Board and you may also attach it but attachments are not necessary. I prefer that you post (copy and paste) your answer directly in the Discussion Board. Again, submit one reply post containing your answers to both Discussion Board Questions (1&2) below:DISCUSSION BOARD ONE (1) 1. If you were the district manager of companies doing business in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., would you make a company policy to allow employees and members of the public to use any restroom or bathroom regardless of biological gender and/or allow Andrew and Barbara to use the bathroom based on their gender preference? Why or Why not?DISCUSSION BOARD TWO (2) 2. You are a United States Supreme Court Justice and you will be the deciding vote because the Court is split. Four Justices believe gender discrimination for public and private bathroom use is unconstitutional and four Justices believe gender discrimination for public and private bathroom use is constitutional. Again, you will be the deciding vote. How would you rule on the legality or constitutionality of gender discrimination in public and private bathroom or restroom use in the United States? Your decision will decide whether or not gender discrimination in public and private bathroom or restroom use is unconstitutional whereas no state will be allowed to ban anyone from using public or private bathrooms or restrooms. Your decision will have an important social and business impact in the United States therefore, please explain your decision and defend your response or decision based on the law in your reading assignment (give or cite page numbers in the text as support of your decision. You may also use the internet, West Law and any other computer/internet legal research as legal support for your decision (give or cite web sites in support of your decision). Please interact with at least two of your classmates. Respond professionally and in a civil manner if you disagree with a response/decision submitted by any of your classmates. Please include concepts from the mandatory reading assignments.NOTE: This is currently a major social and legal business issue!!! I am currently advising parties on both sides of this legal issue and I am very interested in reading your professional personal and business opinions based on the law you are reading and studying in Modules 1 – 3. Please feel free to go beyond any assignment in this course. I am considering giving you extra credit beyond the twenty (20) points for your Discussion Board answer(s)/feedback. (Remember, when it comes to the law and its application, there is no dumb, silly or stupid question or answer. What may be right today may be wrong tomorrow and what may be wrong today may be right tomorrow. Welcome to the world of business law…