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  In the brief, the members of Congress urged the Second Circuit to scrap the ruling from Simonton v. Runyon as "outdated" and create new precedent by holding that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination includes a prohibition on discrimination because of someone's sexual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,...
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

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