Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda
E165284
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal employment discrimination law protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda canonical | 4 |
| Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1440573 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Context triple: [Bostock v. Clayton County, relatedCase, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda]
-
A.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
B.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
-
C.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
-
D.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Target entity description: Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal employment discrimination law protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
-
A.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
B.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
-
C.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
-
D.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Title VII case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ landmark civil rights case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
employment law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | October 8, 2019 ⓘ |
| citation | 590 U.S. ___ (2020) ⓘ |
| consolidatedWith |
Bostock v. Clayton County
ⓘ
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ⓘ |
| constitutionalContext | applies statutory interpretation rather than direct constitutional ruling ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | June 15, 2020 ⓘ |
| decisionType | opinion of the Court ⓘ |
| defendant | Altitude Express Inc. ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Brett M. Kavanaugh
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 17-1623 ⓘ |
| employmentContext | skydiving instructor ⓘ |
| enforcedBy | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ⓘ |
| fullName | Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
Title VII prohibits employers from firing individuals merely for being gay or transgender
ⓘ
discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex under Title VII ⓘ |
| impact |
extended federal employment discrimination protections to gay and lesbian employees nationwide
ⓘ
recognized sexual orientation discrimination as a form of sex discrimination under federal law ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Elena Kagan
ⓘ
John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal law of the United States ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
ⓘ
whether discrimination because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Neil M. Gorsuch
ⓘ
surface form:
Neil Gorsuch
|
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ⓘ |
| originatingCourtDecision | Second Circuit held that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Donald Zarda ⓘ |
| precedentFor | federal cases involving LGBT workplace discrimination ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Bostock v. Clayton County
ⓘ
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ⓘ |
| relatedRight | protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation ⓘ |
| shortName | Zarda ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
LGBT employment rights
ⓘ
interpretation of the phrase because of sex ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2019 ⓘ |
| voteSplit | 6–3 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Description of subject: Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal employment discrimination law protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.