The United States Supreme Court issued a major decision affecting federal anti-discrimination law, holding 6-3 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The decision resolves differences in approaches taken by lower federal courts, which had previously been split as to whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination extended to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The decision covers three combined cases involving three different employers. All three employers had fired a long-term employee for being homosexual or transgender. First, Gerald Bostock was a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia when he was fired shortly after he began participating in a recreational gay softball league. Second, Donald Zarda was a sky diving instructor who was fired after mentioning he was gay. Lastly, Aimee Stephens was fired from R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes after she informed her employer that she intended living and working as a woman, despite being hired while presenting as a male. In all three cases the Supreme Court held that the employers’ decisions to terminate the employees constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.
While the three employees here were fired for being homosexual or transgender, Title VII now prohibits any adverse employment decision that is taken because of the employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This means that employers cannot completely avoid liability merely because there are other factors that motivated their adverse employment decision. Instead, so long as the employee’s sex (including sexual orientation or gender identity) was one of the motivating factors of the adverse decision, that is sufficient to trigger Title VII protections.
The court specifically noted that they were not addressing questions involving bathrooms, locker rooms, or dress code policies. The court also took time to note that standard religious exemptions to Title VII were still applicable.
The significance of this case cannot be understated. Without the necessity of federal legislation, the interpretation of Title VII has been expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers should revise their non-discrimination policies to include sexual orientation and gender identity and should include these issues in employee training.
Fishel Downey Albrecht Riepenhoff represents employers in matters involving alleged discrimination and provides training on these issues. If you have any further questions, contact one of the attorneys at Fishel Downey Albrecht & Riepenhoff LLP at 614-221-1216.