US Appeals Court Is Urged to Protect LGBT Employees Against Discrimination
The Eighth Circuit case tests the reach of Title VII, and the EEOC backed the employee. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear two cases that contend Title VII does include protections against sexual orientation discrimination.
April 17, 2019 at 04:18 PM
4 minute read
Championing gay rights at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ ALM
A health care specialist who has alleged his job offer was rescinded after his would-be employer learned he was gay should be allowed to bring a sexual orientation discrimination claim under federal civil rights laws, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told an appeals court Wednesday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard arguments for 30 minutes in the case Mark Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Management. Horton's case is being closely watched as one of several that confront the scope of Title VII protections for gay and lesbian employees.
Horton, represented by Gregory Nevins, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's employment fairness project, drew support from the EEOC as a friend of the court.
Federal courts are divided over whether sexual orientation bias should be considered under Title VII, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing two cases that contend Title VII does include protections against sexual orientation discrimination. The justices soon could announce whether they will resolve the question.
“We're left with what is the meaning 'because of sex.' The EEOC believes that 'because of sex' incorporates sexual orientation discrimination,” EEOC lawyer Gail Coleman argued Wednesday in front of Judges James Loken, Roger Wollman and David Stras. “The very definition of who is gay or lesbian—you can't define it without considering sex.”
Coleman faced questions from the appellate panel about whether the EEOC was advancing a policy argument rather than a statutory one. One judge asked whether a ruling that recognized sexual orientation discrimination would go beyond the words Congress used in Title VII. The panel also noted that some states have specifically identified sexual orientation as a protected category in human rights legislation.
Coleman said the fact Congress did not include “sexual orientation” in Title VII does not doom the agency's position and Horton's claim against St. Louis-based Midwest Geriatric Management. She urged the court to embrace a “belt and suspenders” approach to interpreting the reach of Title VII.
Arguing for Midwest Geriatric Management, Neal Perryman of the St. Louis firm Lewis Rice asked the appeals court to avoid weighing into public policy issues and societal concerns—”not that they're not important questions for someone to answer, but it's not for this panel.”
Major U.S. companies including Microsoft Corp., Airbnb Inc., eBay Inc., and Viacom Inc. filed an amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit backing Horton. The brief, filed by a team from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, said the companies ”support the notion that no one should be passed over for a job, paid less, fired, or subject to harassment or any other form of discrimination based on nothing more than their sexual orientation, which is inherently sex-based.”
The Supreme Court could soon announce whether the justices will hear arguments next term in the cases Altitude Express v. Zarda from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Bostock v. Clayton County from the Eleventh Circuit and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from the Sixth Circuit.
The Zarda and Bostock cases ask the justices whether “because of sex” includes an individual's sexual orientation. The R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes case asks whether the word “sex” includes gender identity. The Trump-era U.S. Justice Department has urged appeals courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, not to broaden the scope of Title VII. The department's position is at odds with that of the EEOC.
“We should all be paying attention to whether or not they grant cert or deny cert in the Bostock and Zarda cases,” Nevins told the Eighth Circuit panel Wednesday.
Read more:
Podcast: Why This Quinn Emanuel Litigator Is Fighting for LGBT Workers
5th Circuit's James Ho Agrees With Himself in Denying Broad LGBTQ Rights
Justice Dept. Takes Stance Against Transgender Rights—and the EEOC
LGBT Workplace Cases Arrive at SCOTUS as Kennedy Punches Out
Trump Administration Lines Up Against EEOC in LGBT Workplace Rights 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
© 2025 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 All
Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
3 minute read
Selendy Gay Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Workforce Reclassification EO
2 minute read

Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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