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,...
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