U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Federal Law Protects LGBTQ Workers From Employment Discrimination

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Federal Law Protects LGBTQ Workers From Employment Discrimination Article submitted by Blue Level Sponsor, Sally Piefer, Lindner & Marsack, S.C.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Title VII makes it “unlawful…for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1). An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally terminates an individual based, even in part, on his or her sex. The decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, involved three consolidated cases. In each case, the employee sued his/her former employer, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII, after they were terminated because of their homosexual or transgender identity: • Gerald Bostock worked for more than a decade as a child welfare advocate. After The employers in each case did not dispute The Seventh Circuit (covering Wisconsin, he began participating in a gay recreationthat they fired the employees as a result of Illinois, and Indiana) had already ruled that al softball league, influential members of their homosexual or transgender identity. Title VII’s protection covered discrimination the community allegedly made disparagRather, they argued that the “because of sex” on the basis of sexual orientation and gender ing comments about his sexual orientalanguage in Title VII’s proscriptions does identity, the Supreme Court’s decision firmly tion and participation in the league. Soon, not extend protection to the employees on solidifies that discrimination on the basis of he was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a the basis of their gender identity or sexual gender identity or sexual orientation will be county employee. orientation. treated consistently through the U.S. and its • • Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor in New York. After several seasons with the company, he mentioned that he was gay and, days later, was fired. Aimee Stephens worked at a funeral home in Michigan. When she got the job, she presented as a male, but two years later, she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria Justice Gorsuch, generally thought to be a conservative on the Court, wrote the majority opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed with the employers’ arguments, holding that an employer who fires (or otherwise discriminates against) an individual for being homosexual or transgender necessarily and intentionally discriminates against that inditerritories. Wisconsin’s state discrimination laws already extend protections to individuals because of sexual orientation and gender identity, but this decision now firmly reminds employers that policies, procedures, practices and employment decisions must provide protections to LGBTQ employees, or risk violation of federal law as well. and recommended that she begin living vidual, in part, because of sex. “Sex plays a Lindner & Marsack, S.C., represents emas a woman. During her sixth year with necessary and undisguisable role in the deciployers in all areas of labor and employment the company, she wrote a letter to her emsion,” which is exactly what Title VII forbids. law. If you have labor or employment matployer explaining that she planned to “ live Therefore, the Court determined that any ters involving your business, please contact and work full-time as a woman” after she employer who intentionally treats individuSally Piefer at spiefer@lindner-marsack.com returned from an upcoming vacation. The als differently because of their homosexual or (414) 226-4818. funeral home fired her before she left, tellor transgender identity, penalizes those indiing her “this is not going to work out.” viduals on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII.