June 15, 2020
No items found.

Title VII Now Applies to Gay and Transgender People, the Supreme Court Rules

In a stunning victory for LGBT employees and the movement at large, the U.S. Supreme Court has held 6-3 that gay and transgender people are protected by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination “because of sex.” 

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The Court decided three cases together, all of which involved a gay or transgender person being fired after their employer learned of their sexual orientation or gender identity. 

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex. But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

“[W]hen Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, courts apply the broad rule. And that is exactly how this Court has always approached Title VII.”

In the first case, Gerald Bostock was fired from his post as Clayton County, Georgia’s child welfare coordinator--despite the county winning national awards for its work for foster children under his leadership--after he joined a gay recreational softball league. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed his case as a matter of law, holding that Title VII does not protect employees from being fired because they are gay. 

In the second case, Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor, mentioned that he was gay and was fired just days later. The Second Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination does violate Title VII. 

 Finally, Aimee Stephens was fired from her post as funeral director at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Garden City, Michigan after she notified her employer that she planned to live and work as a woman after she sought treatment for despair and loneliness and was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Similarly to the Second Circuit, the Sixth Circuit held that Title VII bars employers from firing employees because of their transgender status. 

Justice Gorsuch relied on the statutory plain meaning of “because of sex” as well as decades of precedent broadly interpreting the meaning of the phrase to outlaw motherhood discrimination and sexual harassment of women and of men. The Court declined to look at the legislative history of the statute’s enactment because the Court found no ambiguity in applying the statute to these cases.            

“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result . . . But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. 

Justice Alito authored a lengthy and biting dissent, accusing the Court of legislating “under the guise of statutory interpretation.” 

“A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall,” Justice Alito argued. 

Justice Kavanaugh also authored a dissenting opinion, in which he acknowledged the LGBT community’s decades-long fight for equal rights, but insisted that it is the proper role of Congress, not the Supreme Court, to make such a change to federal law. 

LGBT people were already protected against employment discrimination under New York State and City laws. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (“GENDA”) made gender identity and gender expression protected classes under the New York State Human Rights Law in 2019. The New York City Human Rights Law also outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. However, less than half the states have such protections, underscoring the importance of this decision for much of the country.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes just a few days after the Trump Administration proposed to roll back an Obama-era rule that protected transgender people from discrimination under the Affordable Care Act.

Written by Kacie Candela.

 

The Art of the Doctor’s Note

August 19, 2020
Pregnancy Discrimination
We’ve all needed one at some point –– a doctor’s note explaining that we’re out for the count on some otherwise necessary aspect of work or school, at least temporarily. Many people are realizing that because of COVID, they don’t feel safe at work due to a disability, and need to modify their pre-pandemic job to accommodate this new reality. In this type of situation, what do you ask your doctor for? What does such a note need to include to help you successfully advocate for your rights?

The Week in FFCRA Cases: Judge Invalidates DOL Implementation, Expanding Eligibility

August 18, 2020
Disability Discrimination
Leave
The complaints we found relevant this week are eerily similar—parents who need to take care of their children, some of whom are immunocompromised, are being denied telework or leave or are being terminated. Further, we are continuing to see plaintiffs who voice concerns to their employers about workplace safety being terminated after doing so.

Federal Family and Sick Leave for Covid-19 Expanded by New York District Court

August 14, 2020
Leave
Paid Family Leave
Pregnancy Discrimination
FMLA
S.D.N.Y. Judge Paul Oetken invalidated parts of the Department of Labor’s interpretation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act in a lawsuit brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James.

Get In Touch

Knowing where to turn in legal matters can make a big difference. Contact our employment lawyers to determine if we can help you.