46 million Americans have filed for unemployment in 2020 as a result of the current pandemic.

In April 2020, the United States saw its highest unemployment rate, at 14.9 percent, since 1933’s Great Depression. 46 million Americans lost their jobs and were forced to file unemployment claims after closures of workplaces were deemed necessary by government officials in response to Covid-19. Since mid-March, 2.7 million, a staggering 13 percent of its population, filed for unemployment in Texas. In hopes of preventing what would have been a devastating economic crisis, federal representatives created a relief package to aid states in taking care of its citizens. Now, states like Texas are demanding that 46,000 unemployment claimants give back any overpaid money they received.

Yes. You read that right.

Texas overpaid its citizens by $32 Million.

I hate to break it to you Texas, but that sounds like a YOU problem. It’s one thing to demand a refund of money given if the unemployment claimant falsified claim information, it’s another thing to request overpaid money from someone who, now dependent on the government, had no idea they were receiving any extra cash. One could however, argue that between the $600 per week given as a result of the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation passed under the CARES Act, in addition to regular benefits received, many Americans were and still are receiving well over their normal paycheck. This may be true, but for many others, unemployment benefits do not match their normal paycheck. Even so, stay at home mandates and closures of stores, parks, gyms and schools lead to unplanned spending!

A pack of 50 face masks cost $30 on Amazon compared to the normal $8. School closures obligated parents to stock up on school supplies, have food for lunch in the house, buy art, music and outside activity supplies. As many employers have lost the ability to provide health insurance for unemployed workers, a quick trip to the Emergency room will cost you an arm and a leg.

This is not to say that it doesn’t suck for Texas that they overpaid on benefits, but, it’s also not most of those claimants faults. Chances are, any extra money is long gone and to expect people to come up with money they never knew they would owe back…is rude, quite frankly! Doing so also defeats the purpose of unemployment benefits in the first place, which is to help keep afloat those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

I have to admit that my liberal proclivities were offended when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court. But the notoriously conservative Justice has followed his professional training to hand down a clear, concise, and logical landmark decision this week in Bostock v. Clayton County. The 6-3 ruling is a major win for the LGBTQIA++ community. Gorsuch is an unexpected champion of the landmark case as the author or the majority opinion.

The case concerned instances of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex identity. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Gerald Bostock asserted he was fired for expressing interest in a gay softball league. The case called into question whether sexual orientation was a protected classification under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Eleventh Circuit – which hears cases for districts in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida – had relied on a precedent that sexual orientation is not protected by Title VII. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee, “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Gorsuch’s opinion relies on “textualism,” which is the interpretation of the law based strictly on the written language of a law. This approach to the justice system does not consider the original intentions of the law’s authors, therefore rendering irrelevant whether or not the authors intended to exclude sexual orientation from the list of protected traits. Based on the language of Title VII, the opinion is clear:

“In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Gorsuch also provides examples to illustrate how discrimination against sexual orientation falls under discrimination based on sex:

“Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.”

A clear example of discrimination on the basis of sex. RBG must be proud.

If you’re a citizen who has been laid off due to Coronavirus and filed for unemployment in the meantime, you may find yourself receiving a “back-to-work” incentive once you return.

According to the HEROES Act, workers who received unemployment benefits would receive $450 per week upon returning to work–this, of course, in addition to their take-home pay–rather than receiving the $600 per week that complements whatever their unemployment benefits amount to.

While the HEROES Act also proposes extending the current bonus of $600 per week for those receiving unemployment into 2021, some argue that this would incentivize remaining on unemployment checks rather than stimulating the economy–hence the $450 weekly bonus for returning to work when possible.

These fears aren’t without support. As Newsweek points out, the American Action Forum shows that “about 63 percent of Americans who are out of work as a result of the pandemic earn more with the enhanced unemployment benefits than they do from their normal wages”–a somewhat comforting statistic that still evokes relative unease when one considers the ramifications of attempting to reopen a reluctant country.

While it is unreasonable to assume that all 63 percent of those people would elect to remain on unemployment benefits rather than going back to work, the $450 bonus may ensure that all of these workers do, in fact, return in a timely manner.

Some may argue that Americans don’t (or shouldn’t) need an incentive to return to work and begin cranking the cogs of the economy once we’re in the clear, but such opinions are fairly short-sighted and largely dismissive of the economic strife many Americans face, especially in poorer regions.

Additionally, many workers will be required to take pay cuts upon rejoining the workforce, which makes the additional $450 per week much more attractive without eliciting criticism of American motivations and values.

As of this writing, Newsweek reports that the White House is “very carefully” considering the HEROES Act–a process that, given the proposed bill of $3 trillion, will take some time. It’s a colossal proposition that covers everything from the aforementioned weekly bonuses to a second round of stimulus checks, and even a form of student loan forgiveness, so keep your eye on this one.