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.

 

New York State Human Rights Law Invoked in Sexual Harassment Arbitration Case

August 11, 2020
Sexual Harassment
A split has appeared in how to handle sexual harassment cases with a New York trial judge ruling recently that the state’s Human Rights Law prevents companies and employees from entering arbitration over sexual harassment. This contradicts an earlier ruling in New York’s Southern District where a judge ruled that arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) supersedes New York’s statutory prohibition against arbitration.

The First Recession for Women

August 11, 2020
Gender Discrimination
There is a new feature to the pandemic-induced recession that has decimated employment, manufacturing, child care, education, and just about every other facet of life. It is women, not men who are the most greatly affected by the force of the shutdown.

The Berke-Weiss Law Weekly Roundup: Black Pregnancy in New York City and School Reopening Reversals

August 10, 2020
Race Discrimination
Pregnancy Discrimination
We’re now a week into the expiration of the enhanced unemployment benefits of the CARES Act and the news is not good. Congress and the White House remain at least a trillion of dollars apart on a new deal, with the Senate GOP split, though their prized bit of the CARES Act, the corporate bailout, did not have an expiration date, unlike those parts aimed at protecting workers, such as the PUA and eviction moratoriums. Thus, with depressing predictability, there were a spate of alarming stories this week echoing the fears that tenant unions and activists have been voicing for months: by ending employment relief we are hurtling toward a cliff, over which lies massive, nationwide evictions.

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.