A Football Recruit Got Asked About Sexuality. The NFL's Investigating. The Law Is Muddy
Gay rights advocates and the National Football League said an unnamed team should not have asked a prospective player whether he “likes men,” a question that spotlights broader risks for LGBT employees and employers in an unsettled legal landscape.
March 09, 2018 at 03:11 PM
6 minute read
Gay rights advocates and the National Football League said an unnamed team should not have asked a prospective player whether he “likes men,” a question that spotlights broader risks for LGBT employees and employers in an unsettled legal landscape.
The legal questions at play may be less clear-cut, however. Many companies have moved toward inquiring about sexual orientation status during the application process in an effort to diversify candidate pools.
“There are a lot of ways companies are working toward broader goals of diversifying the workplace. But it's risky to actually ask it as a question,” said Sam Schwartz-Fenwick, who leads the LGBT Affinity Group at Seyfarth Shaw. “It's raising a lot of legal risk if you are taking protected categories into consideration.”
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
Thirty-one states do not include gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender workers under anti-discrimination laws, and federal appeals courts are divided over whether civil rights law protect sexual orientation. “In the majority of states, if an employer did ask, 'Are you gay?' and didn't hire that person, that person would have no legal recourse,” Schwartz-Fenwick said Friday.
Former LSU running back Derrius Guice told the SiriusXM NFL show “Late Hits” that he was asked about his sexuality and other personal questions during an NFL scouting event. “Some people are really trying to get in your head and test your reaction. … I go in one room, and a team will ask me do I like men, just to see my reaction,” Guice reportedly said.
A spokesman for the NFL called the questioning “inappropriate” and said the league is “looking into the matter.”
“A question such as that is completely inappropriate and wholly contrary to league workplace policies,” Brian McCarthy, an NFL spokesman, said in a statement. McCarthy said the league and the teams “are committed to providing equal employment opportunities to all employees in a manner that is consistent with our commitment to diversity and inclusion, state and federal laws” and the collective bargaining agreement.
“The league annually reminds clubs of these workplace policies that prohibit personnel from seeking information concerning a player's orientation,” McCarthy said in the statement. McCarthy said “clear and specific language” is provided to teams before the scouting process begins that prohibits asking would-be players questions about their sexuality and marriage.
NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, speaking to reporters about Guice's remarks, said any team that asked a player about whether he liked men should be banned from scouting events.
Sarah Warbelow, the Human Rights Campaign legal director, said sexual orientation should not be asked to a prospective job candidate.
“It is not appropriate to put someone on the spot and the risk is high that it will be inappropriately used to make negative hiring decisions on those individuals,” Warbelow said. “Even where there are laws in place, it's a risk.”
Over the last several years, companies such as Facebook Inc., IBM Corp. and, most recently, JPMorgan Chase & Co. have begun to ask employees if they want to identify as LGBT in an effort to diversify the workforce and tailor benefits.
Such questions need to be handled delicately and voluntarily, employment attorneys say, otherwise companies could open a door to liability. Any company asking a prospective applicant about sexual orientation should make it clear that being gay is not a factor in the selection process.
Goldman Sachs reportedly asks prospective employees about their orientation at the time a person applies for a job. There is an option to decline to answer. Goldman's chief diversity officer Anilu Vazquez-Ubarri told Fortune last year: “We ask for this data because we want to keep ourselves accountable.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires companies to track nationality, race and gender, which are protected traits under civil rights law, of both applicants and employees. LGBT status is not tracked, even though in recent years the agency has pushed its view that sexual orientation should be considered a protected class.
Deena Fidas, director of the Human Rights Campaign's workplace program, said employers who gather information about their workforce “do it in a way that is tightly held within human resources departments.” She said any “thoughtful, deliberate process” of looking at workforce characteristics is a “wholly different category than asking about whether someone is gay or interested in men or women as was reportedly done here.”
Schwartz-Fenwick of Seyfarth said many companies do “purposeful recruiting,” going to minority job fairs, for example. He said career counselors may even recommend that a would-be gay employee make their orientation clear on an application.
Any diversity effort, he said, should not muddy the interview process. Candidates should be selected on their merits, or the company exposes itself to liability, particularly for protected classes. Many companies are moving toward a voluntary form that allows the human resources department to track how good a job they are doing to get a diverse applicant pool and make diverse hiring decisions. “Such efforts speak to the ways that corporate America really continues to be at the forefront of efforts to push diversity,” he said.
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
© 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 AllReported 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'
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
- 1Husch Blackwell Hires Former Adobe Counsel to Oversee AI Advisory Offering
- 2CFPB Finalizes Rule Removing Medical Debt From Credit Reports
- 3'Don't F-- With Me in My Court:' Texas Judge in Hot Water
- 4Special Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
- 5Appeals Court Rejects Trump Attempt to Delay Friday Sentencing
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