A federal appeals court has found that a federal agency cannot compel a Texas-based conservative Christian company to adhere to rules that forbid discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers or job candidates.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals’ judgment, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cannot refuse Braidwood Management a waiver from anti-discrimination rules intended to safeguard LGBTQ+ people under Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act.
Grants Exemption From LGBTQ+ Anti-Discrimination Policies
According to the decision, Braidwood is qualified for the exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Judge Jerry Smith stated for the panel of three 5th Circuit judges, Being forced to employ someone to represent the firm who conducts in a manner directly inconsistent with the company’s values is a considerable burden and hinders the exercise of Braidwood’s beliefs.
Read more: China’s Undercover Market For High-End Nvidia AI Chips Exposed
Federal Court Upholds Partial Victory for Braidwood
According to the district court judge who rendered the initial decision in the case in 2021, Braidwood wants to ensure that it is not forced to hire or keep any employee who engages in gay or transgender behavior.”
Additionally, the business disagrees with EEOC regulations that restrict gender-specific clothing rules or mandate that workers use bathrooms that conform to biological sex.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that people who identify as homosexual, lesbian, or transgender are protected from workplace discrimination under Title VII. But, in his 6-3 majority ruling, Judge Neil Gorsuch left open the possibility that employers who have religious objections to hiring LGBTQ+ people may also be permitted to use those arguments in a variety of situations.
The verdict was delivered on Tuesday in the late afternoon. It partially upheld an American lower court ruling in favor of Braidwood.
Nevertheless, Texas district judge Reed O’Connor rejected additional clauses that would have shielded other businesses.
It was uncertain if the EEOC would pursue its appeal. On Wednesday, a spokeswoman chose not to comment beyond stating that the choice was being examined.
