'Religion Has No Place in Employment Decisions': Two Maryland Statutes Could Test Limits of SCOTUS LGBTQ+ Rights Ruling
"It's a very novel case," said one of the plaintiff's attorneys, Anthony May, an associate with Brown Goldstein & Levy. "... [T]his is one of the first cases in the federal space to really determine these issues that intersect with civil rights and these arguments that there's some sort of religious freedom. "
January 17, 2023 at 04:36 PM
6 minute read
What You Need to Know
- Catholic Relief Services requested that the district court certify to the Maryland Supreme Court the question as to whether the state's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
- The district court already determined that it will certify a similar question to the state high court as to whether certain religious entities may discriminate because of sexual orientation under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act.
- The district court recognized that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 'Bostock v. Clayton County' will have an impact interpreting both statutes.
Maryland may be one of the first states to consider how the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in an LGBTQ+ rights case, Bostock v. Clayton County, plays a broader role in interpreting two state anti-discrimination statutes, with a potential opinion coming as early as September.
In the present case, a gay plaintiff identified as "John Doe" sued his employer, Catholic Relief Services, a social services agency constituted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a workplace discrimination case. Doe, a data analyst, alleges that CRS abruptly terminated his legal spouse's health benefits after more than a year of coverage when the organization discovered the couple's homosexual marriage—despite Doe's disclosures about his relationship.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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.
Related Stories
View AllYou Might Like
View AllClass Action Claims Amazon's Point-Based Attendance Policy Is Discriminatory, Suit Says
3 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trump’s Firing of NLRB Member Could Spark Review of Supreme Court Precedent
Testing Legal Authority, Trump Fires NLRB Member, Leaving Panel Without Quorum
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1New York Judge Steps Down After Conviction for Intoxicated Driving
- 2Keys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
- 3Houston Law Firm Files $250K Breach of Contract Suit Against 2 Former Lawyers
- 4The Week in Data Feb. 3: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 5Mass Tort Cases: Challenges for Plaintiff’s and Defense Counsel
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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