Ending Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Employment
Twenty-two states, including California, and the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico, protect both public and private employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.
February 16, 2018 at 03:50 PM
8 minute read
Twenty-two states, including California, and the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico, protect both public and private employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. But in more than half the country, a gay person can get married legally on Saturday, and for doing so be fired legally on Monday, so far as state and local law are concerned. For gay employees in 28 states, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the only possible protection. Indeed, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 1,762 LGBT-based sex discrimination charges in FY 2017, up from 1,100 in FY 2014.
Prior to 2017, every federal circuit to consider the question of whether Title VII's prohibition of discrimination based on sex includes sexual orientation answered negatively. But since the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, the EEOC began asserting that sexual orientation discrimination is inherently sex discrimination under Title VII. Courts, the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are grappling with the issue.
There is a circuit split over whether Title VII makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held en banc by a vote of 8 to 3 that it does, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017), while panels of the Second and Eleventh circuits held to the contrary. The Eleventh Circuit denied en banc rehearing, and in December 2017, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The Second Circuit reheard arguments en banc in September—a decision is pending. Supreme Court review of the question is inevitable.
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.
Trending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 5NY Judge Resigns Amid Investigation of Alleged Unwelcome Sexual Advances, Judgments for Friends
Who Got The Work
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight has entered an appearance for Rafael Badalov in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed July 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Lee Law on behalf of Otter Products LLC, accuses the defendant of selling counterfeit phone cases and accessories bearing the plaintiff's 'OtterBox' trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nina R. Morrison, is 1:24-cv-05214, Otter Products, LLC v. Badalov et al.
Who Got The Work
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Benjamin Hershkowitz, Richard W. Mark and Casey J. McCracken and R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton and Cara S. Donels have entered appearances for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. and MidAmerican Energy Co., respectively, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 17 in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., asserts six patents related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher, is 4:24-cv-00243, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.
Who Got The Work
Michael J. Hickey and Michael L. Jente of Lewis Rice LLC have stepped in to represent Tidal Wave Management in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 18 in Missouri Western District Court by Husch Blackwell on behalf of Waterway Gas & Wash Co., accuses the defendant of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Clean Car Club' mark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., is 4:24-cv-00471, Waterway Gas & Wash Company v. Tidal Wave Management LLC.
Who Got The Work
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz partners Lauren M. Kofke and William Savitt have stepped in to represent CVS Health and and its top officials in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Chaya Sara Kaufmann, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that they used misleading forecasts to set premium plans which overstated the profitability of the company's health care benefits segment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06595, Kaufmann v. Lynch et al.
Who Got The Work
Robert L. Wallan from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has entered an appearance for Findlay Management Group in a pending complaint for declaratory judgment. The complaint, filed on Aug. 8 in Nevada District Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Skarzynski Marick & Black on behalf of Houston Casualty Co., seeks to declare that no insurance policy exists between Houston Casualty and Findlay due to there not being an adequate form of delivery and claims that if delivery was substantiated it is rescinded based on material omissions and misrepresentations. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, is 2:24-cv-01459, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group.
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