Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc.


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:  Matthew Christiansen filed suit against Omicom on the grounds that the company discriminated against him because he was gay, among other reasons.  While sexual orientation, in and of itself is not classified as sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Christiansen argued it should be included as a protected class under Title VII.  While the District Court agreed with this argument, Christiansen's claim was dismissed on the grounds that a prior decision, Simonton v. Runyon, had held that sexual orientation based discrimination is not covered under the law.  Christiansen subsequently appealed.

The Main Issue:  Does sexual orientation fall within a protected class (and amount to sex discrimination) that is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Current Status:  On June 28, 128 members of Congress (23 Senators and 105 Representatives) filed an amicus curiae brief and urged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to conclude that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is in fact sex discrimination (and therefore a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).  In the brief, the members of Congress urged the Second Circuit to scrap the ruling from Simonton v. Runyon as "outdated" and create new precedent by holding that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination includes a prohibition on discrimination because of someone's sexual orientation.

Looking Ahead:  The members of Congress were not the only ones who have recently filed an amicus curiae brief on the matter.  Many others, including the EEOC and civil rights and gay rights advocates groups have also file amicus curiae briefs in support of Christiansen's argument that sexual orientation should be a protected class under Title VII.  At this point, Omnicom has yet to file its responsive brief.  Once that occurs, I would anticipate the Second Circuit will hold oral arguments on the matter later on this year.


For a copy of the amicus curiae brief:  https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2926028/Christiansen-Amicus-Congress.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