October 7th The First Monday In October.

You should by now know that is the day when the new session of the Supreme Court begins and that is the day that two major LGBTQ+ cases will be heard.

The cases will make or break transgender rights in the United States. The cases will decide if trans people and gays and lesbians are covered under the Civil Rights Act Titles VII and IX. But there is another case that will be heard in November that also has far ranging consequences for us. The case is not about LGBTQ+ rights but rather about racism.

Justices tuning in to cable television civil rights lawsuit
AP
By Jessica Gresko
September 8, 2019

WASHINGTON (AP) — Comedian and media mogul Byron Allen wants TV viewers to watch the channels his company produces — from one that runs “Judge Judy”-like shows all day to those dedicated to comedy, cars, food and pets. But while many distributors carry Allen’s channels, two cable giants have refused.

Allen says the reason is that he’s black, and so he’s sued for racial discrimination. An appeals court has let his lawsuits go forward, but now the Supreme Court will weigh in and could deliver a setback.

The justices will hear arguments Nov. 13 in a $20 billion lawsuit that Allen filed against Comcast, with the outcome also affecting a $10 billion case he has filed against Charter Communications.

If Allen prevails, black-owned businesses will have an easier time winning suits that allege discrimination in contracting. If Comcast wins, the bar will be high to bring and succeed with similar suits.

The question for the justices is whether Allen needs to show that race was just a factor in Comcast’s decision not to offer him a contract or whether it was the sole factor.

So what does this mean for us?

It will mean that businesses will be exempt from the civil rights laws. Suppose you own a business (for argument sake, a plumbing business) and you are submitting a bid on a job with company X as a sub-contractor. Company X says “We do not hire trans owned businesses.” That would be a violation of Connecticut’s non-discrimination laws, but if the Supreme Court rules in Comcast’s we might not be protected.

So which side do you think the Trump administration is backing?

According to Blavity,

DOJ Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on August 15 supporting Comcast, claiming companies were allowed to decide on contracts based on race as long as it was not the sole factor confirming a decision.

Michael Foreman, the director of the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic at Penn State, told The Philadelphia Inquirer that by backing Comcast, the government was essentially saying it is "OK to discriminate based on race, just don’t make that the significant part of the decision. I’m sure [Trump’s] thinking is, Let’s make it harder to sue for discrimination claims, and he’s taking that position at the Supreme Court.”

This is major departure from civil rights laws, in the past it only had to be a contributing factor, not a major factor. So in other words… “I didn’t hire him because he’s trans but also because I didn’t like his green suit” would not qualify as discriminating based on gender identity because being trans is not the sole factor in not hiring the person.

You are going to see more and more of these cases that try to create wiggle room in discrimination cases whether for “religious freedom” or cases like the Comcast case.