Skip to main content

District Court in Sixth Circuit Holds Title VII Sexual Orientation Discrimination Claims Are Invalid


Clemons v. City of Memphis, Tennessee - United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Western Division


Facts:  Davin Clemons ("Clemons") was a TACT officer for the Memphis Police Department.  Clemons claimed that during his employment, the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department ("Defendants") discriminated against him because of his sex and sexual orientation.  Apparently, Clemons' supervisors told him they did not approve of his 'homesexual lifestyle', made negative comments about Clemons' engagement to a same-sex male officer, and inconsistently applied department policies against him, among other alleged discriminatory conduct.  

Clemons subsequently brought a Title VII suit against Defendants on the grounds that he was unlawfully discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.  Defendants moved to dismiss his suit.

Holding:  (Note, this analysis only focuses on the Title VII sexual orientation discrimination portion of Clemons' suit).  As with any case that involves a parsing of the language of a statute, the Court looked at the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In essence, Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual "with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."  

The Court next turned to a prior Sixth Circuit case, Gilbert v. Country Music Ass'n, Inc., from 2011 which dismissed a sexual orientation discrimination claim.  In that case, the Sixth Circuit held that simply bringing a claim for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII cannot survive a motion to dismiss as Title VII does not provide protections for employees that allege this form of discrimination.  However, the Court did reference an EEOC decision from 2015 in which it was held that "allegations on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex" and therefore should be included within the scope of Title VII.

Consequently, in reliance upon Gilbert (and without any other controverting Sixth Circuit precedent, the Court held that Clemons could not survive a motion to dismiss his Title VII sexual orientation discrimination claim.

Judgment:  The District Court dismissed Clemons' Title VII sexual orientation discrimination claim on the grounds that this type of alleged discrimination is not a protected category under Title VII and therefore is not an actionable claim.

The Takeaway:  I always like to remind readers to check the caselaw, statutes, bills, etc. in their state to know what the law is.  This case is a prime example.  Readers might recall that last month I highlighted a case out a district court in Pennsylvania (in the Third Circuit) in which that court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  A few weeks later, we have this case come along which reached a different conclusion.  Some readers might wonder how this can be:  Similar facts, alleged discriminatory conduct by the employer on the basis of an employee's sexual orientation, and brought under Title VII.  In short, prior caselaw in a state (or circuit) has a controlling impact on how following cases are likely decided.  

Granted, this case could still be appealed to the Sixth Circuit, but based upon Gilbert, I doubt the court of appeals would reach a different conclusion.  Perhaps it will take a split among several circuits before this type of Title VII case would potentially reach the Supreme Court.  Time will tell.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge McCalla

Date:  December 28, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/ClemonsMemphis122816.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