Skip to main content

Happening Today: U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Trio of Employment Discrimination Cases


This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in three employment discrimination cases in what many legal observers are calling some of the most highly anticipated cases this term.

For those unfamiliar, two cases (Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc v. Zarda) ask the Court to address whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “because of...sex,” also covers discrimination based upon sexual orientation.  As a bit of background, Gerald Bostock (“Bostock”) and Donald Zarda (“Zarda”) both sued their employers after they claimed they were terminated because they were gay.   The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals eventually ruled against Bostock, finding that Title VII does not provide protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation.  In Zarda’s case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals went the opposite direction and found that Title VII does in fact cover discrimination based upon sexual orientation as sexual orientation is a subset of sex discrimination.  With a split among Circuits on the matter, the Supreme Court is expected to resolve the split with a ruling on these cases.  For today’s oral arguments, these two cases will be combined.

The third case (R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) asks the Court to address whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against transgender people based either on their status as being transgender or on sex stereotyping.  As a bit of background, Aimee Stephens (“Stephens”) began working at the funeral home in 2007 and dressed and appeared as a man.  In 2013, after Stephens informed her employer that she was going to live and work as a woman for a year then have gender reassignment surgery, she was subsequently terminated.  The owner of the funeral home later testified that Stephen’s decision to transition to being a woman violated “God’s commands.”  While a federal district court agreed with the employer’s argument that Title VII did not cover discrimination against transgender people, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled in favor of Stephens.

A ruling from the Court in favor of the employees in any of these cases would be somewhat of a landmark decision as it would extend the protections afforded by Title VII to a larger scope of workers.  It is worth noting that there have been more amicus briefs submitted to the Court in favor of extending the protections of Title VII rather than keeping things “status quo.”  While that does not necessarily give an indication of which way the Court might rule, it is interesting to see how many have come out in support of expanding the protections of Title VII.

At this point, I think a ruling from the Court on any of the three cases will be extremely tight.  A 5 - 4 decision, whether for or against extending the protections of Title VII, could be expected.


For additional information:  https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/sex-discrimination-in-employment

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