SCOTUS Asked to Ignore Circuit Split on Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Freeman Mathis & Gary attorneys defending Clayton County, Georgia, in a discrimination fight over sexual orientation say the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit got it right in a finding that discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation is not prohibited under federal law.
August 10, 2018 at 04:39 PM
3 minute read
An attorney defending Clayton County, Georgia, in a discrimination lawsuit filed by a gay employee asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to let stand an appellate ruling that federal laws do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Freeman Mathis & Gary attorneys Jack Hancock and William Buechner Jr. defended the May 10 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta in their response to a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Gerald Lynn Bostock on May 25.
Bostock is represented by Brian Sutherland and Thomas Mew IV of Atlanta's Buckley Beal.
➤ PODCAST: Why This Quinn Emanuel Litigator Is Fighting for LGBT Workers
Bostock was assigned to Clayton County's juvenile court as a child welfare services coordinator in 2013 when he began playing in a gay recreational softball league that he would later claim generated criticism and led to an internal audit of county funds he managed.
Bostock was subsequently fired for conduct unbecoming a county employee, prompting the lawsuit. The county claimed the firing was legitimate, nondiscriminatory and unrelated to Bostock's sexual orientation.
Magistrate Walter Johnson and Senior District Judge Orinda Evans dismissed the case after determining Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion or sex, does not bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed and noted in an unpublished opinion issued in May that “Discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” The Atlanta-based appellate court rejected Bostock's petition to hear the case en banc. In July, the court rejected an unusual motion from its own bench for an en banc hearing—despite dissents by Judges Robin Rosenbaum and Jill Pryor.
In asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, Bostock points out federal appellate courts in the Second and Seventh Circuits have split from the Eleventh in holding that Title VII does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
But Freeman Mathis lawyers argued the Supreme Court has turned down cases when circuits have been split on the underlying legal issues before. Last year, the high court denied certiorari in another Georgia employment discrimination case that the lawyers said “presented the identical issue that [Bostock] seeks to present to the Court in this case.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
'Paragraph V Displaced Lathrop': High Court Mulls Sovereign Immunity Waiver Disputes
7 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250