Great news, though I notice that there's no mention of transgender people.
Yeah, I noticed that too. We'll be second class citizens for a while, I suspect. Luckily, I wasn't planning on firing myself, so I should be okay...
That's because it wasn't the explicit issue here. Basically, this case extended the coverage of the concept of sex discrimination to include gay people. This case can be used as precident when a trans person brings a case. But it didn't explicitly render that decision because it wasn't the issue before the EEOC.
IANAL, but this probably has to do with a legal concept called an Advisory Opinion.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Advisory+Opinion
An opinion that does not cover the case before a court or similar body does not set legal precident.
A court can render an extremely broad opinion so long as it also directly applies to the particular case in front of it.
The Supreme Court can stick a bunch of cases together and cover all of them, but a panel like this can in practice only answer what comes before them.
So a trans person who brings a case can cite this one saying that the EEOC is now using a more expansive interpretation of sex discrimination. But because this case was not about discrimination against trans people, they probably could not have rendered this decision to include them.
