LGBTQ Individuals are now Protected from Workplace Discrimination

LGTBQ Ruling

On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status. The Court interpreted Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to include both sexual orientation and transgender discrimination. This means that LGBTQ individuals are now protected from workplace discrimination. Not only does this provide more protection for employees in the workplace, it is a monumental ruling for advocates of LGBTQ rights. Below are some of the major takeaways of this ruling:

Overview

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 years and older), disability, or genetic information. This law also prevents an employer from retaliating against an employee who opposes discriminatory employment practices or participates in an employment discrimination proceeding.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is the administrative agency assigned to enforce and interpret Title VII. Specifically, the EEOC has interpreted Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to include discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Because Title VII is a federal law, this protection applies regardless of any contrary state or local laws.

Federal Law

Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County[1], employees who have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity may now proceed with a workplace discrimination claim through the EEOC. The employee will proceed with a claim under sex discrimination. When proceeding with a claim of sex discrimination, the employee must offer evidence demonstrating the employer’s illegal conduct. The employer may then respond with nondiscriminatory reasons for their conduct.

After an employee files a Charge of Discrimination, the EEOC conducts an investigation into the alleged discrimination. When the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, it seeks a voluntary resolution between the parties. However, if a voluntary resolution has not been met, the EEOC has the authority to file suit in federal court. An employee may also obtain a right to sue letter from the EEOC. This allows the employee to file their own claim of discrimination in court. Based on the recent Supreme Court ruling, it is likely that we will see an increase of sexual orientation and transgender discrimination cases. 

[1] The Supreme Court consolidated three related cases into one decision. These three cases include: Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Aimee Stephens. 

Examples of LGBTQ-Related Sex Discrimination Claims

Some examples of LGBTQ-related claims that EEOC recognizes as unlawful sex discrimination include:

·       Denying an employee equal access to a common restroom that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity;

·       Refusing to hire an individual on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation;

·       Terminating an employee because he or she has made a gender transition;

·       Denying an employee a promotion because he is gay or straight;

·       Intentionally and persistently failing to use the correct name and gender pronoun that corresponds to the gender identity that the employee identifies;

·       Paying an employee a lower salary because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

See eeoc.gov for more information.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bostock is a huge victory for the LGBTQ community and advocates. This ruling not only settles a split between the Federal Circuit Courts, it provides protection for LGBTQ employees in their workplace.

_______________

[1] The Supreme Court consolidated three related cases into one decision. These three cases include: Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Aimee Stephens.