Skip to main content

Title VII Prohibits Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation


EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center - United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania


Facts:  For about a month, Dale Baxley ("Baxley") was employed by Scott medical Health Center ("Scott") in a telemarketing position.  Baxley was supervised by Robert McClendon ("McClendon") who allegedly made offensive comments towards Baxley in regard to Baxley's sexual orientation.  McClendon was alleged to have made these comments at least three to four times a week.  

In the course of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") investigation into charges of discrimination brought by five female co-workers of Baxley in regard to alleged misconduct by McClendon, the EEOC discovered the alleged harassment extended to Baxley as well.  A subsequent lawsuit was filed against Scott on the grounds that a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 occurred as a result of McClendon's conduct.  Scott moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that Baxley could not establish that Title VII protected discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Holding:  The District Court began its analysis of the case with an examination of Title VII.  Under the language of the statute, Title VII's "because of sex" provision prohibits discrimination no the basis of sexual orientation.  In the EEOC Complaint, it stated that Baxley was discriminated against for being gay.  The Court subsequently held that no meaningful difference exists between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination "because of sex."  

Although the Supreme Court had held that same-sex harassment likely was not contemplated by Congress when it enacted Title VII, that did not necessarily bar Baxley from proceeding with this suit.  Rather, Supreme Court precedent had established that a broad interpretation of the "because of sex" language existed such that same-sex harassment was covered under the "because of sex" provision.  In fact, courts across the country had endorsed an interpretation of Title VII that included a prohibition on discrimination based upon sexual orientation. 

Judgment:  The District Court denied Scott's motion to dismiss on the grounds that sufficient evidence and caselaw established that Title VII prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Takeaway:  To call this case groundbreaking would be a bit of an understatement.  Although other courts have held that Title VII protects claimants from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, this is one of the more recent cases to address the issue since gay marriage became legal across the country.  

As well, note that still exists the question as to how the Third Circuit will address the issue (assuming it gets appealed).  Regardless, this case is important in so much as the Court delineated the language of Title VII to hold that the "because of sex" provision of the statute could be read to establish that Title VII prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Bissoon

Date:  November 4, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/EEOCScottMedical110416.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