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,...
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