EEOC Nominees Are Questioned About Workplace Sexual-Orientation Discrimination
The Trump administration's two nominees to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told U.S. senators Tuesday they were personally opposed to workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but they could not assure lawmakers that they would support the agency's view that adverse actions against gay or transgender workers violates federal civil rights laws.
September 19, 2017 at 02:58 PM
4 minute read
The Trump administration's two nominees to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told U.S. senators Tuesday they were personally opposed to workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but they could not assure lawmakers that they would support the agency's view that adverse actions against gay or transgender workers violates federal civil rights laws.
The nominees, longtime general counsel Janet Dhillon and Daniel Gade, similarly suggested the scope of that protection is further complicated by the fact federal appeals courts are divided and the U.S. Department of Justice in July staked a new position that such protection is not recognized under federal law. The U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a confirmation hearing for the nominees Tuesday.
Democratic senators pressed Dhillon, a former general counsel to Burlington Stores and other major companies, and Iraq veteran Gade, about whether they would stand by the EEOC's guidance that extends the scope of protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination.
Dhillon, the nominee for EEOC chair, said she would work with staff to review the issue but said uncertainty in the courts and the Justice Department's opposing view—first stated in a pending federal appeal in New York—poses a problem to staking a definitive position.
“The current law is in flux,” Dhillon said. “We now have a split in the circuits and two agencies that have taken differing views of the same text.”
The EEOC has stood by its stance in appeals court litigation. In July, the Trump administration's Justice Department, rejecting the EEOC's stance, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Justice Department argued that federal civil rights law does not include sexual orientation and that Congress has the power to expand those rights, not the courts.
The EEOC has weighed in with the opposite view in several appeals courts, arguing that sexual orientation should fall under federal civil rights protections that do not allow discrimination against sex. The agency, charged with enforcing Title VII Civil Rights laws, said the claims against the company involve gender-based stereotyping and gender-based discrimination.
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Senate health and labor committee, called Dhillon's equivocation on her response to questions about the EEOC's current stance “wishy-washy.” Other Democrat leaders pressed Dhillon and Gade on the question.
Dhillon said the issue was an important one to address but said that it's important the federal government speaks in one voice on how the law is interpreted.
She stressed that she did not think sexual orientation discrimination should be tolerated and she does not believe someone's identity has an effect on their ability to perform a job.
“This has real human implications for people and their families. It's easy to give a quick answer but the issue is too serious to give a quick answer,” Dhillon said. “Ideally, a legislative solution could resolve this.”
Gade said he would make no effort to reinterpret the EEOC guidance, unless there was a clear legal reason to move on the issue.
The Second Circuit, sitting as a full court, is poised to take up the dispute next week. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, ruled in April that sexual orientation discrimination violates the Civil Rights Act. That ruling was hailed a landmark decision by gay rights advocates. A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Civil Rights Act does not include protections for gay or bisexual employees.
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.
You Might Like
View All'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
2 minute read4th Circuit Revives Racial Harassment Lawsuit Against North Carolina School District
3 minute readReported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
Why ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
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