Justice Dept. Takes Stance Against Transgender Rights—and the EEOC—in Supreme Court
No EEOC lawyers signed the Justice Department's brief Wednesday that said federal civil rights laws don't protect against gender-identity discrimination in the workplace.
October 24, 2018 at 05:14 PM
6 minute read
The U.S. Justice Department told the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that transgender workers are not guaranteed federal anti-discrimination protections, arguing against the views of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission and marking the latest clash between the agencies over the scope of Title VII civil rights.
The EEOC, which has pushed for broader interpretation of sex discrimination under Title VII, brought the lawsuit against a Michigan funeral home after it fired transgender employee Aimee Stephens. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in March that the funeral home unlawfully fired Stephens.
The Justice Department represents the EEOC in matters before the Supreme Court. The brief filed Wednesday by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, in the case R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Home v. EEOC, did not include any EEOC lawyers on the cover sheet, one sign of the conflict between the agencies. The EEOC declined to comment.
The Justice Department's position was not a surprise, as the agency, under the leadership of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has argued in trial and appeals courts against protections for both gender identity and sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Last year, the Justice Department, lining up against the EEOC, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that federal civil rights protections do not extend to gay and lesbian employees.
Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday they disagree with the Sixth Circuit's ruling that the funeral home violated federal discrimination laws by firing Stephens on the basis of gender identity. Stephens is represented in the Supreme Court by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“The court's further conclusion that gender-identity discrimination necessarily constitutes discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII—although it was unnecessary to the ultimate result the court reached in this case—is also inconsistent with the statute's text and this Court's precedent,” Francisco wrote in the Justice Department's brief.
The Justice Department hedged in its brief on whether the court should take up the case. Francisco argued the Supreme Court should only take up the case if it decides to take up two other cases pending before the court that raise a similar but distinct question about sexual orientation protections.
Those two cases—arising from the Second and Eleventh circuits—focus on whether Title VII protects against sexual orientation discrimination. At least five appeals courts have said gender identity should be protected under federal civil rights law. The appeals courts are divided on sexual orientation protections.
The Second Circuit ruled in Zarda v. Altitude Express that Title VII should include sexual orientation protections. The Second Circuit aligned with the Seventh Circuit's decision last year in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. The Eleventh Circuit ruled against such an interpretation in Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners.
“The question presented in Zarda and Bostock implicates a much deeper and more entrenched circuit conflict on a similarly important and recurring question that nearly every circuit has addressed, and two courts of appeals sitting en banc have recently rejected the long-prevailing consensus view on that question,” Francisco wrote in Wednesday's Supreme Court brief.
Francisco said the question presented “in those cases is distinct from the issues petitioner raises here, but analysis of the issues may overlap.”
|Employers embrace broader protections
The legal definition of sex discrimination under Title VII has evolved over the decades to include sex stereotyping and harassment, among other protections. More states have passed anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT workers.
The EEOC and civil rights advocates in recent years have pushed for a broader interpretation of Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity as forms of “sex discrimination.” The agency, tasked with enforcing those civil rights laws, have tackled thousands of cases on behalf of LGBT workers since it adopted a new position in 2013.
The Trump-era EEOC hasn't abandoned positions taken during the Obama administration on transgender, gay and lesbian rights. The five-member EEOC currently has three members, and two are Democrats. The commission is awaiting the confirmation of Janet Dhillon, former general counsel to Burlington Stores, and Daniel Gade, a West Point professor.
Sessions in October reversed Obama-era guidance concerning transgender protections. The memo said “Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity.” The government said it would take that position “in all pending and future matters.”
On Wednesday, ACLU attorney John Knight urged the court to decline to take up the case, arguing that the dispute is the wrong vehicle for the justices to look at the scope of Title VII protections. The Stephens case, the ACLU said, focuses on sex stereotyping, a protection settled by a previous Supreme Court ruling.
“The circuit courts have uniformly agreed that all people, including those who are transgender, may bring sex discrimination claims under Title VII if their employers discriminate against them because of sex stereotypes related to behavior and appearance,” Knight wrote.
When it comes to corporate America, the trend appears more toward broader inclusion and protections. In a recent report sponsored by Bloomberg Law, Seyfarth Shaw management-side partners Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Ben Conley said they advised companies to craft policies to help transgender workers. State governments have also passed laws that include anti-discrimination protections for gay and transgender workers.
“Employers are increasingly putting in place proactive policies to ensure that their transgender employees feel safe and welcome in the workplace,” the Seyfarth lawyers wrote.
|The Justice Department's brief in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC:
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 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
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
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