Eight Republican senators and 40 congressmen have submitted filings to the US Supreme Court arguing that federal civil rights law does not protect LGBT+ workers.

The politicians submitted documents arguing the Civil Rights Act did not protect workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

If their argument succeeds before the Supreme Court, employers could legally discriminate against LGBT+ employees.

The Republicans argue that while other characteristics are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, sexuality is not one of them.

“What the statute actually prohibits is discrimination ‘because of [an] individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin,’” the group argues.

The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Show all 10 1 /10 The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers North Macedonia 16 per cent Getty Images The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Moldova 14 per cent Getty Images/iStockphoto The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Lichtenstein 14 per cent Getty Images/iStockphoto The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Belarus 13 per cent Getty Images/iStockphoto The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers San Marino 13 per cent Getty Images/iStockphoto The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Monaco 11 per cent Getty Images The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Russia 10 per cent Getty Images The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Armenia 6 per cent Getty Images/iStockphoto The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Turkey 5 per cent Getty Images The worst destinations for LGBT+ holidaymakers Azerbaijan 3 per cent Getty Images/iStockphoto

“Title VII’s sex discrimination provision prohibits discrimination because of an individual’s sex; it does not prohibit discrimination because of an individual’s actions, behaviours, or inclinations.”

All the politicians involved in the case are Republicans. In a separate brief, 15 lawyers argued a similar point.

Both documents hold that only Congress, and not the judiciary, has the power to limit discrimination faced by LGBT+ people.

The two briefs were submitted ahead of three cases which will be heard together in the Supreme Court this autumn.

One case has been brought by Gerald Bostock, a gay man who was fired from his job as a children’s social worker.

A second brief has been brought on behalf of Donald Zarda, a deceased gay man who was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor in New York, according to NBC News.

These two cases have been combined with a third, RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes v Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

That case involves a transgender woman who was fired from her job at a funeral home after telling her employer about her transition.

The Trump administration filed an amicus brief on the third case earlier this month.

In US law, amicus briefs are legal documents filed in court cases by non-litigants with particular interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

In court filings, the US government argued workers should only be protected from discrimination based on their “biological sex”.

The Supreme Court will hear all three cases in October.