Where Gorsuch Sees Ambiguity, Kagan Sees Clarity in LGBT Rights Case
The justices peppered the lawyers with hypotheticals as they probed the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
October 08, 2019 at 03:21 PM
6 minute read
In roughly two hours of arguments Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struggled with whether a federal law against workplace discrimination protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees and whether the justices or Congress should answer that question.
The justices appeared divided on those issues, but mainly on the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law bars employers from discriminating against workers "because of … sex" and the justices must decide whether that language encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.
Throughout the two hours, the justices, with the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas, peppered the lawyers with hypotheticals as they probed the text of the act in two separate arguments involving three cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who could be pivotal to the outcome, asked only one question. Dozens of corporations joined an amicus brief urging the court to broadly embrace protections for LGBT employees.
"The textual evidence is very close" on whether the law does bar discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity, Justice Neil Gorsuch said during one exchange. He questioned whether the justices should consider a potential "massive social upheaval" that such a decision would trigger.
But where Gorsuch might see some ambiguity in the text, Justice Elena Kagan saw clarity.
"Title VII is a statute about individuals," Kagan said. "Is a particular person being treated differently because of her sex? It's as simple as looking at the language of the statute, applying it to a particular individual, which Title VII insists that you do, and coming up with the obvious answer."
The "obvious answer" in the case of Aimee Stephens, who was fired after announcing her intent to transition from male to female, according to Kagan, is she was being treated differently because of her sex. "If she had not been assigned at birth the sex that she was assigned at birth, she would have been treated differently," Kagan said.
Tuesday's arguments were pathbreaking in the sense that the words "transgender" and "cisgender" were heard for the first time. And one of the advocates referred to "Saturday Night Live Pat" in a response to a question about a situation in which gender is ambiguous. She had to explain that "Pat" in the television skit was not known to be male or female.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and Altitude Express v. Zarda, consolidated for one hour of argument, raised the question of sexual orientation under Title VII. R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Stephens focused on gender identity in the second hour.
"When an employer fires a male employee for dating men but does not fire female employees who date men, he violates Title VII," said Stanford Law's Pamela Karlan, representing Gerald Bostock and the estate of Don Zarda. "The employer has, in the words of Section 703(a), discriminated against the man because he treats that man worse than women who want to do the same thing. And that discrimination is because of sex because the adverse employment action is based on the male employee's failure to conform to a particular expectation about how men should behave."
But Justice Samuel Alito Jr. raised with Karlan the second issue that appeared to divide the court. He told her that if the court rules in her favor, some people will say that the Title VII issue is a "big policy issue" and a different issue than the one Congress addressed in 1964. Congress has repeatedly declined to act on requests to address the sexual orientation issue.
"And if the court takes this up and interprets this 1964 statute to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we will be acting exactly like a legislature," he said.
Karlan's opponents, Jeffrey Harris of the boutique firm Consovoy Park and U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argued that the sexual orientation and gender identity issues should be decided by Congress, not the high court. The EEOC, which has pushed for a broad reading of Title VII, did not join the Justice Department's brief in the Supreme Court.
Returning later to that question, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said to Francisco: "At what point does a court continue to permit invidious discrimination against groups that, where we have a difference of opinion, we believe the language of the statute is clear?"
At what point, she added, does a court say the original Congress used very clear words about what the statute meant. "And regardless of what others may have thought over time, it's very clear that what's happening fits those words. At what point do we say we have to step in?"
Francisco responded, "At the point when Congress actually addresses the issue."
Francisco, Harris and John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, counsel to the funeral homes, argued that "because of sex" did not include sexual orientation and gender identity because those are distinct traits or characteristics. Sex in 1964 and today, they contended, means man and woman. Title VII protects a woman from being treated worse than a similarly situated man and vice versa, they said.
ACLU national legal director David Cole, counsel to Stephens, faced a series of hypotheticals on the third issue that seemed on the minds of mainly the conservative justices: what happens to sex-segregated bathrooms, dress codes and other areas if Cole's side prevails?
But Cole said those issues have nothing to do with the Title VII case and however the justices rule, cases raising those issues could come before them.
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'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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