But very few people could be bothered to understand this, bringing about this newer ruling the reinforces the previous rulings but brought up to a modern day understanding
Ultimately this case is just a "yeah the original ruling still holds", but in a legal context it's important as it makes it much harder for special interest groups to argue against it, and makes it much easier for anyone fighting discrimination based on gender (especially if they were denied employment for being male)
Isn't that what the sex part of the 1964 civil rights act already did?
sure did!
But very few people could be bothered to understand this, bringing about this newer ruling the reinforces the previous rulings but brought up to a modern day understanding
Ultimately this case is just a "yeah the original ruling still holds", but in a legal context it's important as it makes it much harder for special interest groups to argue against it, and makes it much easier for anyone fighting discrimination based on gender (especially if they were denied employment for being male)