Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Taino Naiboa

Professor Vance
BUL 3320

GEA2 Global Citizens Writing Assignment

Issue

The LGBTQIAPK group has filed a suit against Christian Mental Health Clinic in Florida for the

act of differentiating bathrooms based on gender at biological birth and is demanding that the

clinic’s bathing and toilet facilities offer gender-neutral options. The legal question, in this case,

is: has the Christian Mental Health Clinic in Florida violated any rights by not providing gender-

neutral accommodations for toilets and bathing facilities?

Rule

The rule of law that applies to this case is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which

provides “relief against discrimination in public accommodations” and the overall elimination of

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Also, the Equal Protection

clause of the 14th amendment applies to this case as well as it states that a state cannot deny any

person the equal protection of the laws.

Analysis

First, the plaintiff must prove that Christian Mental Health Clinic in Florida is a public

accommodation and/or is federally funded. Next, the plaintiff must establish that due to the lack

of gender-neutral bathing and toilet facilities, the defendant has discriminated against its clients

on a basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.


Taino Naiboa
Professor Vance
BUL 3320

Conclusion

In conclusion, the plaintiff cannot bring a successful claim against Christian Mental Health

Clinic. The plaintiff has not met all the requirements to establish that the defendant has violated

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff cannot prove that the Christian Mental

Health Clinic is a public accommodation since the clinic is a private charitable enterprise.

Moreover, because the clinic accepts victims of all races, religions, and genders, the plaintiff

cannot prove that the defendant has violated any terms per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. It is reasonable for the ACLU to side with the defendant in this case.

You might also like