Justices Turn Down LGBT Workplace Discrimination Challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to decide whether the nation's workplace anti-bias law bars sexual orientation discrimination. The justices may soon have another opportunity to take up the closely watched question. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard arguments Sept. 26.
December 11, 2017 at 10:06 AM
4 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to decide whether the nation's workplace anti-bias law bars sexual orientation discrimination.
The justices, without comment, denied review in the case Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital. Jameka Evans, a Savannah security guard, claimed she was harassed at work and forced from her job because she is a lesbian.
Evans, represented by Gregory Nevins of Lambda Legal, had asked the justices to rule that the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation. In March, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it did not.
The justices, however, may soon have another opportunity to take up the closely watched question. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard arguments Sept. 26 in Zarda v. Altitude Express. Don Zarda, who has since died, sued his employer, Altitude Express, claiming he was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor there because of his sexual orientation, in violation of federal and New York state law.
A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit in July had ruled that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
There is disagreement among the federal courts of appeals on the Title VII question. There is also disagreement between the U.S. Justice Department, led by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC has argued in the lower courts that Title VII does prohibit sexual orientation discrimination even though it is not one of the protected categories specified in the statute. In July, the Justice Department rejected that interpretation in a brief filed in the Zarda case. The department told that court that the EEOC did not speak for the United States “and its position about the scope of Title VII is entitled to no deference beyond its power to persuade.”
But the Seventh Circuit in April ruled in an 8-3 en banc decision that Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination incorporates sexual discrimination.
Evans worked at the Georgia Regional Hospital from August 2012 to October 2013. As the Eleventh Circuit panel wrote: “During her time at the hospital, she was denied equal pay or work, harassed, and physically assaulted or battered. She was discriminated against on the basis of her sex and targeted for termination for failing to carry herself in a 'traditional woman[ly] manner.' Although she is a gay woman, she did not broadcast her sexuality. However, it was 'evident' that she identified with the male gender, because of how she presented herself—'(male uniform, low male haircut, shoes, etc.').”
Georgia Regional, represented by Georgia's solicitor general, Sarah Hawkins Warren, took no position on whether the court should grant Evans's petition.
A friend-of-the-court brief, supporting Evans's high court petition, was filed by 76 major companies, including Apple, Linkedin, CBS Corp., Uber Technologies, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel and Google.
Read more:
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 All'Rampant Piracy': US Record Labels File Copyright Suit Against French Distributor Believe
5 minute read'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute read11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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