Skip to main content

The United States Supreme Court Is Set to Determine If Federal Law Prohibits Discrimination Against LGBTQ Workers


With two issues all teed up for the United States Supreme Court to address, legal scholars and those in the LGBTQ community had been chomping at the bit, waiting to see if the Supreme Court would take up a case (or cases) to settle a dispute among circuits over whether federal law protects LGBTQ workers from workplace discrimination.  And for those wondering, on April 22, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three separate cases that will address the matter:  Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC.

Before we get to those three grants of certiorari, let us take a step back and look at the big picture.  For those unaware, at least two circuits (the Second and Seventh Circuits) along with the EEOC have found that federal workplace laws prohibit discrimination based upon a worker’s sexual orientation.  The other circuits (and President Donald Trump era Department of Justice) have found no federal law provides workers any protection from this discrimination.  As for whether federal workplace laws prohibit discrimination based upon a worker’s gender identity, the Sixth Circuit, EEOC, and the President Barack Obama era Department of Justice have found that it does.  The other circuits (and President Trump era Department of Justice) have found no federal law provides workers any protection from this discrimination.

Although there is not a “major” split among circuits on the issue, the fact that there is at least a split among circuits gives the Supreme Court grounds to resolve the disagreement and set a precedent for all circuits to follow (which will likely happen with the granting of certiorari on Monday.)  Now keep in mind that with a Supreme Court that has started to trend more conservative as of late, there is no guarantee federal workplace law would be extended to provide workers protection from these types of discrimination.  In fact, the Supreme Court had previously denied certiorari less than a year and a half ago in Jameka Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, a case that raised similar questions as Bostock, Altitude Express, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes.  When the denial of certiorari occurred in Georgia Regional Hospital, Justice Anthony Kennedy was on the bench.  However, he has since been replaced with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who many expect will not be as receptive to extending protections to LGBTQ workers from workplace discrimination.

With that being said, all it takes is one case with favorable facts for the Supreme Court to flip this matter on its head.  Until the Supreme Court issues an opinion (or opinions) on the matter, employers and employees alike should consult the relevant caselaw in their circuit to determine the extent (if any) of federal law and discrimination protection in regard to these two situations.


For additional information:  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/do-not-publish-supreme-court-can-settle-split-on-lgbt-bias-in-the-workplace

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