76 Companies Urge Supreme Court to Support LGBT Workplace Protections
Major U.S. companies and organizations, including tech giants, financial institutions and sports teams, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to create uniform…
October 11, 2017 at 08:14 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Major U.S. companies and organizations, including tech giants, financial institutions and sports teams, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to create uniform federal protections for gay, lesbian and transgender employees.
Seventy-six businesses on Tuesday filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court in the case Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital. Companies on the brief included Viacom Inc., Uber Technologies, American Airlines, Starbucks Corp., Deutsche Bank and The Estée Lauder Cos. Sports franchises included the Miami Heat and Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd. Google Inc., Facebook Inc. and Airbnb Inc. also signed the brief.
The Supreme Court case, which gay rights advocates hope will settle questions about the scope of workplace protections for LGBT employees, confronts whether sexual orientation should be considered sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Circuit courts are split on this question and now two government agencies, the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are also at odds.
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to rehear the Evans case—and the full court did not ask for a vote. Lambda Legal, which represents Jameka Evans, the challenger, filed a petition in September urging the justices to take up the case.
The coalition of businesses and organizations, organized by a team from Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, argued in its amicus brief that no employee should face discrimination for sexual orientation, which they argued is “inherently sex-based.” Quinn Emanuel partners Kathleen Sullivan and Todd Anten were among the lawyers who filed the brief.
“These businesses and organizations are committed to giving everyone the opportunity to earn a living, excel in their profession, and provide for their family free from fear of unequal treatment,” the amicus brief said. “Creating workplaces in which employees are and feel safe from discrimination frees them to do their best work, with substantial benefits for their employers.”
A similar amicus brief was filed in a case that was heard en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Zarda v. Altitude Express, where 50 companies pressed for sexual orientation protections in the workplace. Many of the companies in these briefs overlap, including Edelman, Levi Strauss and Ben & Jerry's.
In the Second Circuit case, dozens of groups filed in support of sexual orientation protections, including the EEOC, which has trumpeted the position that sex discrimination includes discrimination against orientation and gender identity. The Trump administration's Justice Department filed an opposing brief in the Zarda case that argued Congress would need to pass sexual orientation protection and alter Title VII in order for protections to be ensured. At oral argument, Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan was needled about the disconnect between the two agencies.
The coalition of companies in the Supreme Court case argued for clarity and uniform positions on this issue, particularly given the different stances from the government agencies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in April said sexual orientation protection should be considered under federal civil rights laws, a decision hailed as a landmark ruling for LGBT rights. That ruling created a split, where the Eleventh Circuit and other rulings have concluded the civil rights statute does not include sexual orientation protections.
The companies noted in their brief that a survey of the top 50 Fortune 500 companies and the top 50 federal government contractors showed the majority of respondents connect policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination with a better bottom line. The amicus brief also argued that a patchwork of state and local regulations around the country puts some companies in a difficult position.
“We believe in treating every person we come into contact with—whether it's our employees, our consumers, or our vendors—with dignity and respect,” said Anna Walker, senior director for global policy and advocacy at Levi Strauss & Co. “That value is central to our business—but more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Discrimination hurts people, holds back communities, and tarnishes our nation's image.”
The Human Rights Campaign, which provides an equality index to examine whether employers protect LGBT workers, shows in its annual reports that most Fortune 100 companies have adopted policies to provide equal protections for gay and lesbian workers.
The 2017 report saw the largest increase in businesses in the history of the survey, 515 employers, earning perfect scores. Businesses offering transgender inclusive health care coverage also jumped to 647 from 511 companies over the year.
Related Articles:
|- Jeff Sessions Memo, Reversing Transgender Protections, Further Inflames Divisions
- Justice Department, Divided Internally, Backed Colorado Baker Over Gay Couple
- Trump Administration Lines Up Against EEOC in LGBT Workplace Rights Case
- Donald Verrilli Returns to SCOTUS in New Gay Rights Challenge
- 53 Companies Back Transgender Teen in SCOTUS Fight
Erin Mulvaney covers labor and employment issues from the Swamp to Silicon Valley. She's a Texas native based in Washington, D.C. Contact her at [email protected]. On Twitter: @erinmulvaney.
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 AllSEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readFTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
Trending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
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