WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of Rosie Phillips Davis, PhD, president of the American Psychological Association in the cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity:
“The psychological research into gender and sexuality supports the conclusion that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination based on sex and thus should be deemed illegal under federal law. Research has found that sexual and gender minorities are stigmatized because they often do not conform with sex-role stereotypes. Using their conformity to such stereotypes as a basis for employment is not permitted under current law. Further, stigmatizing LGBT employees for their nonconformity to sex-role stereotypes is likely to affect their psychological and physiological health, including stress, anxiety, substance use and other negative behaviors.”
The American Psychological Association has filed numerous amicus briefs in cases regarding sexual orientation, citing the scientific research into the genesis of sexual orientation and gender identity and the harms that can result from discrimination. These briefs have provided important information to the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and have been cited as foundational to key decisions, including those outlawing anti-LGBT ballot initiatives in the states, overturning anti-sodomy laws and finding that same-sex couples have the right to legal marriage.
“The brief APA filed for the cases now under consideration by the Supreme Court regarding these workplace discrimination cases is based on much of the same scientific literature. We are hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will continue to rely on this evidence and rule that LGBT citizens deserve the same workplace protections as everyone else. We call on the court to find that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.”
The cases are: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC.