Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Burrows v. College of Central Florida


As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  Barbara Burrows ("Burrows") was a lesbian college professor and administrator at College of Central Florida ("CCF").  When CCF President Charles Dassance ("Dassance") hired Burrows, he knew she was a lesbian and had a partner.  Burrows initially received acceptable annual evaluations her first two years in the position and CCF renewed her contract each year.  However, Dassance began to receive complaints from faculty and staff about Burrows and her job performance.  Dassance was subsequently informed CCF would not renew her contract for another year.  

CCF allowed Burrows to transfer to a teaching position in the math department, but she received about $40,000.00 less in salary in her new position.  Burrows subsequently filed grievances that she was entitled to additional salary, but each grievance was denied.  Burrows proceeded with a discrimination claim and alleged that CCF failed to renew her contract based upon her gender, sexual orientation, marital status, failure to conform to religious beliefs, and failure to conform to gender stereotypes in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Florida state law. 

The Main Issue:  Does sexual orientation discrimination constitute illegal gender stereotyping in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Current Status:  After the case got moved to federal court, CCF filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claims on the grounds that discrimination based upon sexual orientation was not covered by either Title VII or Florida state law.  The District Court granted the motion as to the sexual discrimination claim on the grounds that the 11th Circuit and other courts have consistently held that Title VII does not apply to discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

Burrows subsequently appealed the District Court's ruling.  Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed an amicus brief in support of Burrows.  The EEOC argued that the District Court's dismissal was in error because:

  1. Sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves sex stereotyping, as it results in the adverse treatment of individuals because their orientation does not conform to heterosexually defined gender norms.  
  2. Sexual orientation discrimination constitutes gender based associational discrimination.  As the EEOC pointed out, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has previously held that associational discrimination is actionable under analogous circumstances implicating race.
  3. Title VII generally prohibits sex based considerations in the employment context.  Therefore, discrimination based on sexual orientation necessarily requires such impermissible consideration of a plaintiff's sex.

Therefore, the EEOC argued that when an employer discriminates against an employee based upon sexual orientation, the employer necessarily discriminates based upon sex...which is in violation of a protected category under Title VII.  

Looking Ahead:  This is a very interesting case sitting in the 11th Circuit.  Note, the EEOC's brief was only just submitted to the Court of Appeals on January 6, 2016.  I would expect the Court will allow additional briefs on the issue in the coming weeks/months.  

Granted, it is a bit of an uphill fight for Burrows as the District Court used a rather restrictive interpretation of Title VII to conclude that Burrows could not proceed on that portion of her claim against CCF.  The one thing that Burrows does have on her side, however, is the fact that an increasing number of courts that have held that sexual discrimination is in fact actionable under Title VII and therefore, if the Court of Appeals adopted a broader reading of Title VII, her claim should be allowed to proceed.  The only question is whether the 11th Circuit will follow that line of reasoning?  This is certainly one to keep an eye on. 


A copy of the EEOC's brief can be found here:  hr.cch.com/ELD/BurrowsbriefCTA11.pdf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more