X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Erin Mulvaney

Erin Mulvaney covers labor and employment issues from the Swamp to Silicon Valley. She's a Texas native based in Washington, D.C. Contact her at emulvaney@alm.com. On Twitter: @erinmulvaney

More from this author

Law Firms Mentioned

<img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1123" src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Quinn Emanuel Urquhart

/uploads/sites/398/2017/10/Google-Headquarters-Article-201710111650.jpg" alt="" width="620" height="372" /> &nbsp; Major U.S. companies and organizations, including tech giants, financial institutions and sports teams, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to create uniform federal protections for gay, lesbian and transgender employees. <span style="font-weight: 400;">Seventy-six businesses on Tuesday </span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4106566/Evans-Amicus-Brief-of-76-Businesses-FINAL.pdf">filed a friend-of-the-court brief</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> in the Supreme Court in the case </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/ga_evans-v-ga-regional-hospital">Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital</a></strong></span>, </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">which is being considered to take up question</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Companies on the brief included American Airlines, Starbucks Corporation, Deutsche Bank and The Est��e Lauder Companies. Sports franchises included the Miami Heat and Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd. Google Inc., Apple,��Uber Technologies, Facebook Inc. and Airbnb Inc. also signed the brief.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">The Supreme Court case, which gay rights advocates hope will settle the scope of workplace protections for LGBT employees, confronts whether sexual orientation should be considered sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several other��<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/us_evans_20171011_amicus-brief-scholars">legal scholars</a></strong></span> and <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/us_evans_20171011_amicus-brief-legal-advocates">LGBT advocacy groups</a></strong></span> filed briefs urging the Court to take up the case.��</span> ���The nation���s top corporations recognize that discrimination is bad for business,��� said Greg Nevins, Employment Fairness Project Director for Lambda Legal. ���When workers can bring their whole selves to work, they can focus on their jobs rather than needing to look over their shoulders worrying about whether will get fired.��� <span style="font-weight: 400;">Circuit courts are split on this question and now two government agencies, the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, </span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202794035460/Trump-Administration-Lines-Up-Against-EEOC-in-LGBT-Workplace-Rights-Case">are also at odds</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to hear the </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Evans </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">case en banc and Lambda Legal, which represents Jameka Evans, the challenger, filed a petition in September urging the justices to take up the case. The Savannah security guard sued her former employer Georgia Regional Hospital, claiming she was harassed at work and forced to quit because she is a lesbian.</span> <div style="float: left; margin: 2px 15px 0px 0px; width: 245px;"><img class="size-full wp-image-1121" src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Quinn Emanuel Urquhart

/uploads/sites/398/2017/10/Sullivan-Kathleen-Vert-201710111335.jpg" alt="" width="245" height="369" /> <i>Kathleen Sullivan<i></i></i></div> <span style="font-weight: 400;">The coalition of businesses and organizations, organized by a team from Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart &amp; Sullivan and Freedom for All Americans, argued in their amicus brief that no employee should face discrimination for sexual orientation, which they argued is ���inherently sex-based.��� Quinn Emanuel partners Kathleen Sullivan and Todd Anten were among the lawyers who filed the brief.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">���These businesses and organizations are committed to giving everyone the opportunity to earn a living, excel in their profession, and provide for their family free from fear of unequal treatment,��� the amicus brief said. ���Creating workplaces in which employees are and feel safe from discrimination frees them to do their best work, with substantial benefits for their employers.���</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">A similar amicus brief was filed in a case that was heard en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/09/26/govt-agencies-spar-in-second-circuit-over-lgbtq-rights/"><i>Zarda v. Altitude Express</i></a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400;">, where 50 companies pressed for sexual orientation protections in the workplace. Many of the companies in these briefs overlap, ��including Edelman, Levi Strauss and Ben &amp; Jerry���s.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">In the Second Circuit case, dozens of groups </span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202791378518/50-Companies-Tell-Court-Sexual-Orientation-Discrimination-Is-Bad-For-Business">filed in support of sexual orientation protections</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400;">, including the EEOC, which has trumpeted the position that sex discrimination includes discrimination against orientation and gender identity. The Trump administration���s Justice Department </span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202794035460/Trump-Administration-Lines-Up-Against-EEOC-in-LGBT-Workplace-Rights-Case">filed an opposing brief</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> in the Zarda case that argued Congress would need to pass sexual orientation protection and alter Title VII in order for protections to be ensured. At oral argument, Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan was needled about the disconnect between the two agencies.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">The coalition of companies in the Supreme Court case argued for clarity and uniform positions on this issue, particularly given the different stances from the government agencies.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit </span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782980774/In-Gay-Rights-Gamechanger-Appeals-Court-Bars-Employment-Bias-Based-on-Sexual-Orientation">in April said sexual orientation protection should be considered</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> under federal civil rights laws, a decision hailed as a landmark ruling for LGBT rights. That ruling created a split, where the Eleventh Circuit and other rulings have concluded the civil rights statute does not include sexual orientation protections.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">The companies noted in their brief that a survey of the top 50 Fortune 500 companies and the top 50 federal government contractors showed the majority of respondents connect policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination with a better bottom line. The amicus brief also argued that a patchwork of state and local regulations around the country puts some companies in a difficult position.</span> ���We believe in treating every person we come into contact with ��� whether it���s our employees, our consumers, or our vendors ��� with dignity and respect,��� said Anna Walker, Senior Director for Global Policy and Advocacy at Levi Strauss &amp; Co. ���That value is central to our business ��� but more importantly, it���s the right thing to do. Discrimination hurts people, holds back communities, and tarnishes our nation���s image." The brief also notes that��approximately 10 million adults in the United States, or 4.1 percent of all adults, identify as LGBT. ���Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation (a form of sex-based discrimination) is widespread and has significant, harmful effects on employers, employees, and the bottom line," the brief states. <span style="font-weight: 400;">The </span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://assets.hrc.org//files/assets/resources/CEI-2017-Final.pdf?_ga=2.130840015.1112873215.1495213871-618142620.1494359999">Human Rights Campaign</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400;">, </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">which provides an equality index to examine whether employers protect LGBT workers, shows in its annual reports that most Fortune 100 companies have adopted policies to provide equal protections for gay and lesbian workers.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400;">The 2017 report saw the largest increase in businesses in the history of the survey, 515 employers, earning perfect scores. Businesses offering transgender inclusive healthcare coverage also jumped from 511 to 647 companies over the year.</span> <

  • Quinn Emanuel Urquhart

>

Lean Adviser Legal

Think Lean Daily Message

"Clients don t care what happens in the back office of law firms, or about their technologies. They mostly don t care one jot what the law is. Clients care about solving problems, reaching outcomes and avoiding surprises."

Learn More

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.