Big Backlash: Mega Corporations Push Back Against Trump Over Transgender Rights
Microsoft Corp., Google Inc. and The Coca-Cola Co. were among 56 companies pushing back against recent attempts by the Trump administration to reduce protections for transgender people.
November 01, 2018 at 02:30 PM
4 minute read
Dozens of companies, including Microsoft Corp., Google Inc. and The Coca-Cola Co., pushed back against recent attempts by the Trump administration to reduce protections for transgender people under federal civil rights laws. They instead stressed the importance of equality in a public statement released Thursday.
The 56 companies include major financial institutions, tech companies and retail giants, among other household names, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., Deutsche Bank, IBM Corp. and American Airlines. The effort was organized by 14 LGBT advocacy groups, including Out Leadership and the Human Rights Campaign.
“We're proud that the business community is raising its voice to defend some of the most vulnerable members of our society and helping to fill the leadership vacuum created by the federal government,” Todd Sears, founder and principal of Out Leadership, said in a statement.
The letter comes a week after the U.S. Justice Department told the U.S. Supreme Court that a transgender worker should not be guaranteed federal civil rights protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, veering from the position of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC sued a Michigan funeral home for firing Aimee Stephens, who had presented as a man for six years as funeral director before she came out as transgender to her bosses and co-workers.
Related story: Justice Dept. Takes Stance Against Transgender Rights—and the EEOC—in Supreme Court
The New York Times first reported plans to redefine “gender” under federal civil rights laws under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to specify that gender refers to the sex a person is at birth. This proposal would effectively erase protections for transgender students.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has argued in trial and appeals courts against protections for both gender identity and sexual orientation under Title VII. Last year, the Justice Department, lining up against the EEOC, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that federal civil rights protections do not extend to gay and lesbian employees.
The business group's letter called for the millions of people who identify as transgender, gender nonbinary, or intersex “to be treated with the respect and dignity everyone deserves” and calls “for respect and transparency in policy-making, and for equality under the law for transgender people.”
“We oppose any administrative and legislative efforts to erase transgender protections through reinterpretation of existing laws and regulations,” the letter continues. “We also fundamentally oppose any policy or regulation that violates the privacy rights of those that identify as transgender, gender non-binary, or intersex.”
The group notes that dozens of federal courts have upheld the rights of transgender people. At least five federal appeals courts, for instance, upheld protections of gender identity under Title VII. Those protections protect workers from discrimination against their employers.
Fortune 500 companies and large business have adopted LGBT inclusive policies that include anti-discrimination, specialized training programs and other benefits.
The Supreme Court could consider how far to extend the scope of protections in the workplace, under Title VII, this term with the Stephens case, R.G.G. Harris Funeral Home v. EEOC, and two others from the Second and Eleventh circuits that focus on whether protections extend to sexual orientation.
Business groups and major companies have sided with the LGBT workers in the lower courts on these cases and others, pushing for equality and arguing that protections would be better for their bottom lines.
Yet a recent report from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation found that nearly half of gay and transgender workers remain closeted at work, a statistic that has remained largely unchanged in the last decade. The group tracks LGBT policies at major companies across the country, and has found a record number of companies are adopting progressive policies for gay and transgender workers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLexisNexis Responds to Canadian Professor’s Criticism of Lexis+ AI
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Environmental Fines: Texas Secures Over $100M From Petrochemical Processor TPC Group
3 minute readBaker McKenzie Accepts Defeat on Australian Integration With Firm's Asia Practice
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250