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,...
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