Former Roberts Clerk Will Argue for Clayton County Against LGBT Workers
Consovoy McCarthy partner Jeffrey Harris will make his U.S. Supreme Court argument debut in October, arguing that Title VII does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination.
September 18, 2019 at 12:51 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Consovoy McCarthy partner Jeffrey Harris will make his debut argument next month in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of two employers who contend federal civil rights laws do not protect LGBT workers from sexual orientation discrimination.
Harris, who clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in the 2008 term, will appear Oct. 8 opposite Pamela Karlan, co-director of Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. The justices are scheduled to hear the closely watched cases Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.
The two cases concern the scope of protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex. The issue before the justices is whether "because of sex" includes an individual's sexual orientation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in the Altitude Express case for broader LGBT protections. The Eleventh Circuit ruled for more limited rights. The Supreme Court that same day will hear a related dispute over whether federal law protections transgender employees from workplace discrimination.
Consovoy McCarthy, an eight-lawyer boutique firm that specializes in constitutional law, appeals and complex litigation, has served as a go-to firm for conservative litigants. Several of the firm's attorneys represent President Donald Trump in various appellate matters challenging the U.S. House of Representatives's subpoenas of Trump's personal financial records. Former Consovoy partner Michael Park was confirmed in May to a seat on the Second Circuit.
In the Supreme Court, Harris' clients—Altitude Express and Clayton County—have agreed to give U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco 10 minutes of their 30 minutes of argument time. The Trump Justice Department abandoned the Obama-era argument that Title VII shielded gay, lesbian and transgender workers from discrimination. Trump's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, however, did not back the Justice Department's arguments in the new Supreme Court cases.
Harris' appearance in one of the new Supreme Court term's highest profile cases will mark his first argument at the Supreme Court lectern. Harris has argued often in the lower federal appeals courts, however. He and partner William Consovoy, a leading attorney for Trump, will be at counsel's table on the first day of the new Supreme Court term as co-counsel to Louisiana in Ramos v. Louisiana, a challenge to non-unanimous juries in criminal cases.
Consovoy McCarthy was neither involved in the briefing of the two Title VII cases nor in any of amicus briefs that were filed in support of, or against, broad civil rights protections for gay, lesbian and transgender workers.
Harris declined to comment on how Consovoy McCarthy was picked to argue in the Title VII case. Lawyers for Altitude Express, represented by Saul Zabell of Zabell & Collotta in New York, and for Clayton County, represented by Jack Hancock of Freeman Mathis & Gary in Georgia, declined to comment about how Consovoy McCarthy was chosen to make the argument next month. (Harris also is defending Georgia's new ban on most abortions against a challenge in federal court.)
On the other side, Buckley Beal's Brian Sutherland, representing Gerald Bostock, and New York's Gregory Antollino, representing the estate of Donald Zarda, had requested divided argument time from the Supreme Court. They agreed that Stanford's Karlan, a veteran Supreme Court advocate, would argue for their side if the court, as it did, turned down their request for argument time.
Title VII protections are at the center of a third case being argued the same day as the sexual orientation cases: R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Stephens. In this case, the justices will decide whether federal law bars employers from discriminating because of a person's transgender status or because of sex stereotyping.
The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the EEOC and Aimee Stephens, who claims the Michigan funeral home fired her after she made known her intention to transition from a male to female. The Justice Department, without the EEOC's support, has asked the Supreme Court to rule against Stephens.
Francisco, the solicitor general, will share argument time with John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, counsel to the funeral homes. Bursch, a former Michigan solicitor general, will be making his 12th high court argument. He unsuccessfully defended Michigan's same-sex marriage ban in the high court in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges.
John Knight, senior staff attorney of the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project, plans to argue for Stephens in favor of Title VII protection for transgender individuals.
Knight and the ACLU have worked with Stephens since she filed her discrimination claim with the EEOC. They successfully moved to intervene in the Sixth Circuit to protect her interests going forward. The argument, like the one Harris will make in the sexual orientation case, will be Knight's first in the Supreme Court.
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 AllTrump's Lawyers Speak Out: 'The President Had the Confidence to Retain Me'
Trump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
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