From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
Federal civil rights law doesn’t prohibit employment discrimination against gay and lesbian workers, a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled. The decision is another step in a legal journey that could end at the U.S. Supreme Court ( Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp. , 2017 BL 75949, 11th Cir., No. 15-15234, 3/10/17 ).
There’s “a good probability” the full Eleventh Circuit will take up the case, said J. Randall Coffey, a partner with Fisher & Phillips LLP in Kansas City, Mo., who represents employers. And it “seems inevitable” the issue will “eventually wend its way” to the Supreme Court, Coffey told Bloomberg BNA March 13.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said in a 2-1 ruling that its prior decisions foreclosed the argument that bias based on a worker’s homosexuality necessarily is sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The March 10 decision rejected the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which backed lesbian security guard Jameka Evans’ contention that her hospital employer violated Title VII.
The three-judge panel’s decision “almost certainly” will be reviewed by the full Eleventh Circuit, said P. David Lopez, a former EEOC general counsel who’s now a partner at Outten & Golden LLP in Washington.
The ruling “certainly has all the hallmarks” of a case the full Eleventh Circuit should review, said Greg Nevins, a senior attorney with Lambda Legal Education and Defense Fund in Atlanta who represented Evans.
Whether Title VII bans bias based on sexual orientation is “an important issue” the panel’s decision “set up well” for review by the full court, Nevins told Bloomberg BNA March 13.
Two other federal appeals courts currently also are considering if Title VII’s ban on sex bias necessarily prohibits discrimination against lesbian and gay workers.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument Nov. 30 on a lesbian community college instructor’s Title VII claim that she was denied promotion and ultimately fired because of her sexual orientation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard argument Jan. 20 on a gay male employee’s Title VII discrimination and harassment claims based on sexual orientation.
Decisions in those cases probably will be handed down later this year.
No federal appeals court yet has ruled that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination prohibits bias based on sexual orientation.
But some appeals courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have said a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that bias based on gender stereotyping can violate Title VII can protect LGBT workers.
Such workers must prove an employer discriminated because they didn’t conform to gender norms about how a man or woman should speak, act, dress or otherwise behave.
The Eleventh Circuit panel opinion provides “a nice springboard” for review of the Title VII issue by the full court, Lopez told Bloomberg BNA March 13.
The majority opinion by Judge Jose E. Martinez rejected the argument that Title VII on its face prohibits bias based on a lesbian worker’s sexual orientation as a form of sex discrimination.
But Martinez said a federal district court on remand must give Evans a chance to amend her complaint to state a Title VII claim based on the gender stereotyping theory.
Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum in dissent said it’s “utter fiction to suggest” Evans wasn’t discriminated against for “failing to comport with her employer’s stereotyped view of women.”
Any lesbian worker who alleges an employer discriminated because of her sexual orientation essentially is claiming the employer discriminated because she’s attracted to women and therefore doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes, Rosenbaum wrote.
Rosenbaum’s “robust dissent” is “very strong” and “on the mark,” said Lopez, who worked on the EEOC’s amicus brief for Evans before leaving the agency in December 2016.
The “time has come” for all federal appeals courts that have ruled Title VII doesn’t cover sexual orientation bias to re-examine their precedents, Lopez said.
In a concurring opinion, Judge William H. Pryor said the Supreme Court’s precedent on gender stereotyping can’t be stretched to find Title VII protects all gay and lesbian workers.
Congress, not the courts, should decide if Title VII reaches that far, Pryor said.
It’s an important point because Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins said only that gender stereotyping can be “evidence” of discrimination, Coffey told Bloomberg BNA. It didn’t create a new protected class of people based on gender stereotyping, he said.
Pryor’s opinion said the sexual sterotyping theory involves whether a person’s “behavior” conformed to an employer’s gender norms, not a person’s “status” as heterosexual or homosexual.
The full Eleventh Circuit will have to clarify how broadly the sexual stereotyping theory sweeps, Coffey said.
The Eleventh Circuit’s “splintered opinions” show there’s “no principled or coherent way” to distinguish between bias based on sex and discrimination based on sexual orientation, said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.
“When an employer targets a worker for being gay or lesbian, the employer necessarily takes the person’s sex into account, which Title VII prohibits,” Minters said in a March 13 email to Bloomberg BNA.
The Eleventh Circuit’s division over the proper Title VII analysis shows “courts are finally starting to take these claims seriously,” Minter said. Courts “recognize that older decisions simply dismissing them out of hand are troubling and unpersuasive,” he said.
The Supreme Court will likely be final decision-maker on this Title VII issue, Minter said.
“In the long run, I’m optimistic that the courts will reach the right result, recognizing that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination, because there is no principled argument on the other side,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kevin McGowan at email@example.com
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Evans_v_Ga_Regl_Hosp_No_1515234_2017_BL_75949_11th_Cir_Mar_10_201. .
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)