Victory! U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Employers Cannot Discriminate Against Their Employees for Being LGBT

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII protections apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers. Title VII was created in 1964 and prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. After hearing oral arguments for three cases last October, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that prohibited discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII also extends to LGBT workers.  This landmark ruling is a huge victory for employees and the LGBT movement. 

Before Monday’s ruling, employees in more than half the states could be fired for being LGBT. The three cases discussed before the Supreme Court involved two gay men and one transgender woman, all of whom were terminated immediately after their employer discovered they were LGBT. Gerald Bostock was an award-winning child welfare advocate in Georgia but was fired after his employer found out he participated in a gay recreational softball league. Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor in New York, was fired days after mentioning he was gay to a client. Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman working at Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan, was fired after announcing she planned to “live and work full-time as a woman.” 

The Court’s decision was surprising to most, as Justice Gorsuch, appointed by President Trump, wrote for the Court. Justice Gorsuch was joined by Republican-appointee Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The majority found that Title VII’s “because of sex” was originally enacted with protections for LGBT employees in mind. Further, even if an employer’s ultimate goal is to discriminate against its employees on the basis of sexual orientation, the employer intentionally treats an employee worse based on that individual’s sex along the way. For example, if two identical employees are attracted to men, and the employer fires the male employee for no other reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits it tolerates in its female employee. The Court found that this is simply discrimination based on sex, with Justice Gorsuch stating that this analysis “involve(s) no more than the straight-forward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings.” 

Justice Gorsuch’s decision was surprising because of who appointed him—but, to the vast majority of Americans identifying with both political parties, it is clear that LGBT people in the workplace should not suffer discrimination because of their sexual orientation, i.e., because of sex. In fact, according to The New York Times, 90% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans believe it should be illegal for employees to be fired based on sexual orientation. Similarly, 86% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans believe it should be illegal for employees to be fired for being transgender.

Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined in a dissent out of touch with what the American public has long believed, arguing that the Court was wrongly stepping into the shoes of legislators. Justice Alito stated that if Congress wanted Title VII to include protections for the LGBT population, it would have amended the statute to explicitly include “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Meanwhile, in a separate dissent, Justice Kavanaugh focused primarily on statutory interpretation and argued that the majority failed to analyze appropriately the “ordinary meaning” of Title VII. 

The Court’s decision resolved a split among federal circuit courts, with the Eleventh Circuit previously holding that sexual-orientation-based claims were not actionable under Title VII but the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuit reaching the contrary decision. In Bostock’s case, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of Bostock’s complaint due to a previous panel holding that found Title VII did not apply to sexual orientation claims, holding that “under [the] prior panel precedent rule, we cannot overrule a prior panel’s holding, regardless of whether we think it was wrong.” The prior panel had explained, “[d]ischarge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII,” highlighting that no Supreme Court decision had ever “squarely address[ed] whether sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited by Title VII.” Evans v. Georgia Reg'l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1255-56 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979)). Similarly, the district court in Stephen’s case stated that “neither transgender status nor gender identity are protected classes under Title VII.” E.E.O.C. v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, 201 F. Supp. 3d 837, 861 (E.D. Mich. 2016). In his dissent in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., the Second Circuit case finding that sexual-orientation-based claims were actionable under Title VII, Judge Gerard E. Lynch stated, “I would be delighted to awake one morning and learn that Congress had just passed legislation adding sexual orientation to the list of grounds of employment discrimination prohibited under Title VII[, but when] I actually woke up[, I] realized that I must have been still asleep and dreaming. Because we all know that Congress did no such thing.” 883 F.3d 100, 137 (2d Cir. 2018). With the Supreme Court’s decision today, we can wake up knowing that we all have the right to be protected against employment discrimination under Title VII.

In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” We agree. To the tireless activists—including Mr. Zarda and Ms. Stephens, both of whom passed away before this decision could be published—and decades of LGBT activism that led to this momentous decision today, we thank you and look forward to ensuring employers adhere to this ruling in the years to come.

Bryan Schwartz Law celebrates today’s important decision. The firm has written about Title VII many times before. If you believe you were discriminated against on the basis of sex, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.

Can You Be Fired For Being Gay? The Supreme Court Will Soon Decide.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear three cases about workplace discrimination. Under Title VII of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act, it's illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex. What "sex" encompasses is what's at issue in these cases. Up until now, federal law has treated "sex" to include gender only, meaning an employer can't discriminate against you just because you're a man or a woman. The question at issue in these cases is whether the word "sex" also encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity. If you identify as LGBTQ+, are you protected from discrimination in the workplace? That's what SCOTUS will soon decide.

In one case, a transgender woman was fired from her job after revealing that she was transgender and would be dressing in accordance with the female dress code for the office. In the other two cases, gay men were fired because of their sexual orientation. 28 states currently have no protections for LGBTQ+ employees in the workplace (although a few of those states protect public sector workers). The Obama Administration had interpreted federal non-discrimination statutes to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but the Trump Administration reversed course, and is essentially saying an employer may fire someone for being gay or transgender, without consequences under Title VII. That shouldn't be surprising coming from an Administration that implemented a transgender military ban (which Bryan Schwartz Law has written about before); denies citizenship for the foreign-born, adopted children of gay couples; and nominates judges to the federal bench who are openly hostile to LGBTQ+ people. The Democrat-controlled House passed the Equality Act earlier this year, which would enshrine LGBTQ+ workplace protections into federal law, but the Republican-controlled Senate has not advanced the Act, making the Supreme Court's upcoming hearing especially important.

In this climate, and given the current composition of the Supreme Court, LGBTQ+ advocates and allies are understandably worried. Some are hopeful that since these cases don't involve interpreting the Constitution (as was required in the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell), but rather a statutory interpretation of Title VII, some of the conservative justices who voted no in Obergefell might vote yes in these cases. Advocates also hope that Chief Justice Roberts will remember what he famously said in 2015 when the Court heard arguments about same-sex marriage: “I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?” Excellent question, Chief Justice. We look forward to your answer - which could come anytime between next month and next summer.

If you've been discriminated against in the workplace because of your sexual orientation or gender identity, contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Baker and Emboldens Anti-LGBTQ Efforts in Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision

The Supreme Court issued today its highly-anticipated decision in MasterpieceCakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 (Jun. 4, 2018). While the opinion’s narrow holding sets no groundbreaking precedent, it strengthens anti-LGBTQ activists and their narrative of state-led, anti-Christian persecution as the substantive debate returns to lower courts.

In 2012, Jack Phillips, owner of the bakery Masterpiece Cakeshop outside of Denver, refused David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake because he believed creating a cake for a same-sex wedding violated his religious beliefs. (Slip Op. at 1). Mullins and Craig filed a charge under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in any “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public.” (Slip Op. 5). The Colorado Civil Rights Commission sided with Mullins and Craig, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. (Slip Op. at 8).

The Supreme Court’s reversal in favor of Phillips, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, comes as a surprise given Justice Kennedy’s career-defining support for LGBTQ rights. Among his authored opinions are Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), invalidating anti-sodomy laws, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, and Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Justice Kennedy acknowledges “[o]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” (Slip Op. at 9). But the Court still sided with Phillips, finding that the state had not met its obligation of religious neutrality. (Slip Op. 2). Instead of giving Phillips “neutral and respectful consideration,” the Court found the Commission exhibited anti-religious hostility in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. (Slip Op. at 9). Especially troubling to Justice Kennedy were the comments of one Commissioner who likened Phillips’s position to defenses of slavery and the holocaust and disparaged Phillips’s religious beliefs as “despicable” and merely “rhetoric.” (Slip Op. at 13-14). Justice Kennedy also took issue with the Commission’s treatment of Phillips compared to secular bakers who had refused to bake cakes with homophobic messages in other discrimination claims. (Slip Op. at 14-16).

By reversing the lower court on these narrow grounds, the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the case’s main issue of to what extent religious freedom can justify discrimination based on sexual orientation. “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” writes Justice Kennedy. (Slip Op. at 18). While his motivation is unclear, limiting the decision to the case’s particular facts may be an attempt to prevent further polarization in an already divided culture.

But even with its narrow holding, Masterpiece Cakeshop will negatively shape the debate over LGBTQ rights as the issue returns to lower courts. Most significant may be Justice Kennedy’s broad definition of “hostility.” In their dissent, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor criticize Justice Kennedy’s conclusion that statements made by one or two Commissioners can taint proceedings involving “several layers of independent decisionmaking, of which the Commission was but one.” (Slip Op. at 7). Finding such a low level of “hostility” violates the state’s obligation of religious neutrality expands on Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the only case cited by Justice Kennedy as support. Lukumi involved only one decisionmaking body, compared to several in Masterpiece Cakeshop, and anti-religious animus motivated the passing of an entire law, not just a couple of a law’s enforcers. (Slip Op. at 7-8). As a result, Masterpiece Cakeshop may embolden those discriminating based on sexual orientation to seek redress in court by claiming that their animus against gay people is based upon religion.

The Supreme Court has dealt LGBTQ rights a blow with Masterpiece Cakeshop. But the wound is not fatal, and the widespread “recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts” provides hope that the civil rights of the LGBTQ community will prevail as the substantive issues of law return to the lower courts.

If you have experienced discrimination based upon your sexual orientation or gender identity and need help, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Sixth Circuit Extends Title VII Protection to Transgender Employees

Joining the Second and Seventh Circuits, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision last month that extended Title VII protection for individuals who are transgender or transitioning in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018). 

The case involves Aimee Stephens, who had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes ("Funeral Home") when she informed the funeral home's owner that she is a transgender woman and intended to start dressing in appropriate business attire for women as part of her transition. The owner of the funeral home fired Stephens because of Aimee's transgender status, claiming that he would violate God's commands if he permitted funeral directors to deny their sex while representing the funeral home and would render him complicit "in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift."

After her termination, Stephens filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Funeral Home fired Stephens due to her sex and gender identity. The EEOC also found the Funeral Home to be in violation of Title VII because it provided male employees with a clothing benefit which was denied to females. After the EEOC's informal conciliation process failed, the EEOC filed a complaint in federal court against the Funeral Home on September 25, 2014.

After the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, the District Court determined that there was direct evidence to support Stephen's claim of employment discrimination on the basis of her sex. However, the Court nevertheless found in the Funeral Home's favor, concluding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) precludes the EEOC from enforcing Title VII against the Funeral Home, as doing so would substantially burden the Funeral Home's religious exercise, and the EEOC had failed to demonstrate that enforcing Title VII was the least restrictive way to achieve its presumably compelling interest “in ensuring that Stephens is not subject to gender stereotypes in the workplace in terms of required clothing at the Funeral home.”

The EEOC timely appealed, and Stephens moved to intervene in this appeal on January 26, 2017, after expressing concern that changes in policy priorities within the U.S. government might prevent the EEOC from fully representing Stephen's interests in the case. Stephen's request was granted by the Sixth Circuit on March 27, 2017. 

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit overturned the district court, finding that Stephens was protected by Title VII because the Funeral Home's decision to fire Stephens necessarily implicated Title VII's proscriptions against sex stereotyping, which is already protected under the court’s precedent in Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2004) and Supreme Court precedent from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). As to the employer’s free exercise of religion defense, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that forcing the funeral home to comply with Title VII did not meet the RFRA’s substantial burden requirement, in part because the funeral home could not rely on the presumed gender biases of its customers to establish a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion. The ruling affirms that transgender individuals are protected by federal sex discrimination laws, and that religious belief does not give employers the right to discriminate against them.

Seventh Circuit Holds Federal Law Prohibits Employers From Firing People Because they are Gay

Before the full panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a groundbreaking decision, holding 8-3 that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates federal civil rights law.

The case involved a lesbian, Kimberley Hively, who sued Ivy Tech Community College when it denied her full-time employment and promotions because she was a lesbian and married to a woman. Hively began teaching at Ivy Tech in 2000 as a part-time adjunct professor. Between 2009 and 2014, Hively applied for at least six full-time positions, but each of these efforts were unsuccessful; even worse, in July 2014 her part-time contract with Ivy Tech was not renewed, resulting in her termination.

After she was terminated, Hively filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that Ivy Tech discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation and violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the trial court dismissed the case, the Seventh Circuit initially affirmed the the trial court's decision based on decades of case law that held sexual orientation was not a protected category under Title VII. Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 830 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2016). 

Before the Seventh Circuit's full panel, Chief Judge Diane Wood, writing for the majority, brought new life into analyzing claims of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. The court framed the main question of the case as a question of statutory interpretation: what does it mean to discriminate on the basis of sex, and in particular, are actions taken on the basis of sexual orientation  a subset of actions taken on the basis of sex?

Guided by the U.S. Supreme Court's approach in a related case addressing whether Title VII covered sexual harassment inflicted by a man on a male victim (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)), the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation may not have been the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it passed Title VII. The Seventh Circuit nonetheless found that "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which [courts] are governed." Id. at 79-80. The court also acknowledged that Title VII has been understood to cover far more than the simple decision of an employer not to hire a woman simply because of her gender.

Hively framed her argument for why she should be covered by Title VII under two approaches: (1) a simple comparison isolating Hively's sex and the significance it played in her employer's decision; and (2) relying on Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which found that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution protects interracial marriages, holding that Title VII protects Hively's right to associate intimately with a person of the same sex. 

Under the first approach, the court found that if Hively had been a man married to a woman, and everything else would have stayed the same, Ivy Tech would not have refused to promote her and would not have fired her. The court stated that "any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant - man or woman - dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates and marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex," falling within Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination. 

Addressing the second theory of discrimination presented by Hively, the court, relying on decades of cases holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on the race with whom a person associates, found that Ivy Tech's discrimination against Hively based on the sex of the person she associated with is also prohibited under the act. 

The court concluded with a clear holding: a person alleging that he or she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of his or her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes. 

This is a landmark decision for the LGBTQ community, extending federal employment protections in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, which previously had state laws that only prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to state employment. This decision will now cover all private and public employers subject to Title VII. And, this will hopefully lead to other U.S. Circuit Courts revisiting this issue and expanding employment protections across the country for the LGBTQ community.

In California, the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act have explicitly protected sexual orientation and gender identity from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations for many years. Last year, California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing became the first state civil rights agency to issue guidance to employers regarding transgender employees.

If you have experienced discrimination based upon your sexual orientation, and need help, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter Signals that Transgender Americans Can Serve Openly in the Military

Effective this month, transgender Americans may now serve openly in the U.S. military and can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender.

This decision to allow transgender Americans is one of many recent changes  that has resulted in a transformation of the military.  The Department of Defense also recently opened all combat roles to women and appointed the first openly gay Army secretary.

Defense Secretary Carter said that the military's top leaders, including Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were on board with ending the prohibition on transgender service.  Carter also said the Pentagon would cover the medical costs of those in uniform who are seeking to undergo gender transition, though it would expect new recruits who are transgender to spend at least 18 months in their transitioned gender identity before joining the military.

While the decision was heralded by LGBT groups and progressives, there remains stiff opposition to the change in policy from Congressional Republicans. Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for the new policy to not be carried out until Congress could convene hearings. And Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, released a statement saying he would examine “legislative options to address the readiness issues associated with this new policy.”

Secretary Carter said that while practicality played a role in the decision, it was also a "matter of principle."

“Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so,” Carter said. “After all, our all-volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified Americans. And the profession of arms is based on honor and trust.”