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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more