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.
Related Articles:
|- Corporate Friend or Balanced Perspective? EEOC Chair Nominee's Experience Is Debated
- Burlington GC Janet Dhillon, Trump's Pick for EEOC, Discloses Ethics Pledge, Salary
- Trump's Latest EEOC Pick, Daniel Gade, Has Long Criticized Disability Pay for Vets
- An Employee Spoke Out on Glassdoor.com, and Now the EEOC Is Suing His Company
- Ex-EEOC GC David Lopez, Morgan Lewis' Speights Deconstruct Federal Labor Rules
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 AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
8th Circuit Appeal Could Weaken Key Defense in Disability Bias Cases, Employment Lawyers Say
Michael Cohen Loses Bid for Supreme Court Review of Civil Rights Lawsuit
ACLU's Strangio Will Become First Openly Trans Attorney to Argue at Supreme Court
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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