It’s time to end sexual orientation & gender identity discrimination

There is currently legislation pending in both the Ohio House [H.B. 163] and Ohio Senate [S.B. 125] that would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of classes from which employees are protected from discrimination by their employers. Notably, the bills protect both actual and perceived sexuality and gender-related appearance:

• “Sexual orientation” = “actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.”
• “Gender identity” = “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated gender at birth.”

If Ohio Revised Code chapter 4112 is amended to include these protections, then harassment of employees based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity become illegal. In that case, the line-splitting in which courts have engaged under the rubric of “same-sex harassment” will largely become a relic.

Case in point? EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction Co. (5th Cir. 9/30/13). The facts of this case are horrific. It’s worth a read to understand just how cruel employees can be to each other. Yet, the case split 10-6 on whether the facts supported claim of sexual harassment. One of the two dissents envisioned a world in which employers would have to distribute “etiquette memos” to purge the workplace of speech and gestures that might be viewed in any way as tokens of sex discrimination. I’ve reprinted the court’s very tongue-in-cheek example below.

The dissent is exaggerating to make its point that Title VII was never meant to be a general civility code, and only the worst type of sex-based behavior is meant to trigger the statute.

Exaggerations aside, the time has come for Congress (when the federal government is back in business), along with all 50 state legislatures, to step up to the plate and end this debate. Enact legislation including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, and bring to and end the shameful protection of discrimination against this marginalized class of individuals.

---

ETIQUETTE FOR IRONWORKERS

MEMO TO: Management FROM: Legal Department of Apex Co. DATE: September 2013

In keeping up with the newest developments in employment law, we have carefully reviewed and hired specialist outside counsel to give us a legal opinion concerning the implications of a recent Fifth Circuit en banc decision. EEOC v. Boh Bros. . . . Like us, the employer in that case engaged in heavy construction and often operated in all-male crews. Like us, it had an unblemished record, years without a Title VII case. But the court ruled that common sexual epithets and vulgar gestures, when used too frequently by a male, heterosexual supervisor, can support a verdict against the company on behalf of another male, heterosexual plaintiff. Instead of looking on these actions as horseplay or, at worst, bullying, the court approved a jury verdict for “gender-stereotyping harassment.” The EEOC intends to make this case an example for similar workplaces.

We need not advise you of the costs a company can incur in these cases. In addition to hundreds of thousands in outside legal fees, a judgment for damages may run into six figures. The EEOC requested, and got, a sweeping and intrusive injunction that will require significant expenditures in paperwork compliance costs and regular workplace sensitivity training for over one thousand employees.

To avert these consequences, we recommend that the company immediately issue the following rules for proper, non-gender-stereotyping workplace behavior. Employees should be informed that the rules apply across the board, to all-male, all-female, and mixed-sex offices and positions. The workplace must be cleansed of speech and actions that may be misperceived or twisted as reflecting gender stereotyping harassment.

NOTICE CONCERNING TITLE VII

To our Associates:

You are all aware of this company’s unwavering policy to prevent discrimination of any kind based on sex, race, religion or national origin. Because of a new court decision, we must now focus on eliminating same-sex “gender stereotyping” of any kind as well. This means that men may expose this company to liability for their speech and behavior in the presence of other men, and women in the presence of other women. Although these rules will apply throughout the company, you IRONWORKERS have to take special notice. The rules apply throughout the workday, during breaks and lunch hours, and whenever two or more workers are gathered together.

1. At the most general level, all employees must refrain from any communication—spoken, written, or gesticulated—that may create any suggestion of “sexual stereotyping” or “gender-based bullying.” Please consider the broad implications of this prohibition, some of which follow. All employee interactions must be fully gender inclusive (or at least gender ambiguous). Careless phrases and jokes will not be tolerated if they may be interpreted to carry a stereotyping overtone.

2. No more banter about bodily functions, sexual or otherwise, or human physical appearance. Those who do not enjoy references to sweat, toilet humor, tattoos, tight jeans, muscles, or large beards may feel singled out as not “man enough” for such speech.

3. Do not discuss the appearance of women or any intimate sexual encounters, and do not refer to or use words that refer to sex in any way. This includes CUSS WORDS.

4. Do not swivel your hips, make obscene gestures or mimic “twerking.”

5. Avoid discussing topics that may be viewed as “non-inclusive”: bodybuilding, Boy Scouts, hunting, fishing, and riflery. Football and other “macho” sports may be an unwelcome subject to those who consider them boorishly aggressive.

6. Do not engage in any competitive activity, like lifting heavy objects, on the worksite. This can create a sense of unmanly inferiority for non-participants.

7. Do not use gender-stereotyped nicknames or name-calling. Supervisors may not encourage you to work harder by saying “put your backs into it,” or “man up,” and terms like “ladies” or “sissies” will be grounds for immediate discipline.

8. Schoolyard humor, which is common at our jobsites to fill down-times and relieve boredom, raises sensitive issues. Some workers may be put off by jokes about personal grooming, scented deodorant, chest hair, or clothing as a form of gender hostility. Poking fun at a worker for drinking a diet soda, not being able to eat a raw jalapeno, using “Wet Ones” or “Purell” to clean himself, or calling someone a “wimp” or “wuss” or “geek” may get us sued and you in serious trouble.

9. Asinine locker room behavior is forbidden. Examples of this would be comments about anatomy, crude gestures, actions like towel-swatting, simulated sexual acts, and any behavior that would make someone ill at ease with his personal expression of his gender. Relieving yourself in the presence of others is forbidden; the company is reconfiguring all restrooms to prevent any worker from observing another worker’s bodily functions.

10. Avoid touching any coworker in any manner, except if asked to rescue the person from physical danger, and even then, avoid touching private areas.

PENALTIES: A first violation of these rules will result in a warning, a second violation in suspension without pay, and successive violations will result in termination. We will not call this a “three-strikes” policy, as that term might be interpreted to refer to the principally male sport of baseball. We need hardly explain that any worker terminated for same-sex gender stereotyping will have a hard time finding future employment.

The Company will conduct quarterly sensitivity sessions, where you can learn more about offensive gender stereotyping against fellow males and what you can do to prevent or correct it. As questions arise at any time, call our newly hired Sex Stereotype Counselor in the HR Department.

---

A “wet one” renders him gay? 5th Circuit to reconsider same-sex harassment case

In EEOC v. Boh Brothers Constr. Co., ironworker Kerry Woods (male) asserted that his supervisor, Chuck Wolfe, subjected him to all of the following:

• Called Woods names such as “faggot” and “princess.”
• Approached Woods from behind to simulate sexual intercourse.
• Exposed his genitals to Woods numerous times.
• Accused Woods of being girlish because he used “Wet Ones” instead of toilet paper to clean himself after using the bathroom.

Neither Woods nor Wolfe is homosexual. According to the Court, the workplace was full of this type of misogynistic and homophobic epithets, and the recipients, including Woods, responded in kind.

After Woods’s termination, he filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, claiming, among other things, same-sex harassment. In the subsequent lawsuit filed the EEOC, the jury returned a verdict in Woods’s favor, awarding him $200,000 in compensatory damages (statutorily reduced to $50,000) and $250,000 in punitive damages.

The 5th Circuit, however, reversed:

Title VII protects employees against workplace discrimination, not against all forms of mistreatment. The EEOC alleges that Woods was unlawfully harassed because he was not stereotypically masculine. Because the only evidence of non-stereotypically masculine behavior in the record is Woods’s use of “Wet Ones,” we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Woods was discriminated against “because of … sex.”

In other words, Woods could not establish unlawful same-sex harassment because Wolfe was not homosexual, was not hostile to men in the workplace, and worked in a single-sex workplace. The 5th Circuit left for another day the question of whether sex stereotyping is a cognizable form of same-sex harassment under Title VII.

It appears that day is upon us. Last month, the 5th Circuit agreed to rehear this case en banc.

The issue will resolve tension between two Supreme Court opinions:

• Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the seminal case on the illegality of sex-based stereotypes under Title VII.
• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which permits same-sex harassment claims, but only if the harasser: (i) is homosexual, (ii) is motivated by a general hostility to the presence of the same sex in the workplace, or (iii) comparatively treated members of one sex differently than members of the other in a mixed-sex workplace.

If the 5th Circuit reverses course and permits the EEOC to pursue Woods’s claim for general same-sex harassment, it will signal a giant step towards doing that which Congress has refused—protecting sexual orientation from discrimination as a class.

[Hat tip: Workplace Prof Blog]

How do you spell civil rights? ENDA

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it has filed a lawsuit against a Charlotte security-services company on behalf of a group of male employees who claim that their same-sex captain and lieutenant sexually harassment them.

This news comes on the heels of President Obama’s Inaugural Address, which The New Yorker calls, “America’s most important gay rights speech.” It was not only what the President said, but also the context in which he said it—on Martin Luther King Day, as part of a larger discussion about the civil rights movement.

Here are the President’s remarks, courtesy of ABC News:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths—that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall….

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began…. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

What does this mean for you, as an employer? It means that President Obama’s second term will likely be the point in history when sexual orientation achieves equality. It means that sometime between now and 2016, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will become the law of the land, amending Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected employment classes on par with race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, and age. It’s about time.

The time is coming when LGBT discrimination will no longer be acceptable. As an employer, you can get ahead of this issue. According to the Human Right Campaign, 88 percent of the Fortune 500 has non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and 57 percent include gender identity. ENDA or not, we should be at 100 percent. It’s appalling that 13 years into the twenty-first century, it is still legal in the United States of America to treat people differently solely because of their inclusion in a marginalized group. Get on the bandwagon now, and send a signal to all of your employees that you are a business of inclusion, not one of bigotry and exclusion.

My one question for Mitt Romney: civil rights

Today, I continue my series on the one debate question I would ask each of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. Today’s target—Mitt Romney. Here’s my one question:

You are on record opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would make it illegal under federal law for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet, you have also publicly stated that you support anti-discrimination and equal rights for all.

Which is it? Are you in favor of equal rights for all, or you do believe that it permissible for employers to deny rights to individuals based on their sexual orientation or their gender identity? And, if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came across your desk in the Oval Office, would you sign it or veto it?

Courts inch closer to recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class

The Ohio Bell Telephone Company fired Plaintiff Jason Koren after he missed work for his father’s funeral. Koren suspected that Ohio Bell really fired him because he’s homosexual and took his husband’s last name. He sued for gender discrimination. Did the court: a) grant Ohio Bell’s motion for summary judgment because Title VII does not offer protections for sexual orientation; or b) deny the motion because Title VII does protect against the application of unlawful sex-based stereotypes? Give yourself a prize if you answered “b.”

Here’s what the court had to say in Koren v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Co. (N.D. Ohio 8/14/12) [pdf]:

“[A] plaintiff hoping to succeed on a claim of sex stereotyping [must] show that he fails to act and/or identify with his or her gender, … as all homosexuals, by definition, fail to conform to traditional gender norms in their sexual practices.” Koren’s position is that changing his name upon marriage was a nonconforming “behavior” that supports his gender discrimination claim…. Ohio Bell disagrees and attempts to frame Koren’s claims as a simple attempt “to bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII.” …

The Court agrees with Koren: homosexual males do not “by definition, fail to conform to the traditional gender norms” by changing their surname upon marriage. And here, Koren chose to take his spouse’s surname—a “traditionally” feminine practice—and his co-workers and superiors observed that gender non-conformance when Koren requested to be called by his married name….

Koren has alleged just such a failure to conform. And he says that [manager] Miceli “harbored ill-will” because he changed his name but that she would not have done so if a female employee had changed her name. Koren testified that Miceli refused to call him by his married name, that Miceli went out of her way to call him by his previous last name, and that Miceli informed him that she did not recognize same-sex marriages. And that ill-will, Koren says, resulted in seven unexcused absences and, ultimately, his termination.

Nine out of the last 10 Congresses have tried to pass a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which among other things, would add “sexual orientation and gender identity” to the list of classes protected under Title VII. It has failed each time. Courts and the EEOC, however, continue to give the LGBT community that which the legislature has rejected.

As for me, I’ll simply repeat the opinion I gave after the EEOC issued its groundbreaking pronouncement on this issue earlier this year:

The time is coming when this type of discrimination will no longer be an open issue. I suggest you get on the bandwagon now, and send a signal to all of your employees that you are a business of inclusion, not one of bigotry and exclusion.

EEOC pronounces protections for transgender workers

Title VII does not, on its face, protect transgender workers from discrimination. Increasingly, however, courts have extended its protections under the umbrella of Title VII’s protections against sex-stereotyping-as-gender-discrimination, as first explained 23 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins decision:

In saying that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, we mean that, if we asked the employer at the moment of the decision what its reasons were and if we received a truthful response, one of those reasons would be that the applicant or employee was a woman. In the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.

Earlier this week, the EEOC made what might be the most significant pronouncement to date on the issue of the protection of transgender as gender discrimination. Macy v. Holder [pdf] involved a transgender woman, Mia Macy, who claimed that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms denied her a job after she announced she was transitioning from male to female.

In reinstating Macy’s Title VII claim, the EEOC concluded:

That Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination proscribes gender discrimination, and not just discrimination on the basis of biological sex, is important…. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex whether motivated by hostility by a desire to protect people or a certain gender, by assumptions that disadvantage men, by gender stereotypes, or by the desire to accommodate other people's prejudices or discomfort….

Thus, we conclude that intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination “based on … sex,” and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII.

While this opinion is not binding on courts, one cannot overstate the significance of the fact that the agency responsible for enforcing the federal EEO laws has made this broad pronouncement. Many employers operate under the belief that they are free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity because Title VII lacks no facial prohibition. As this case illustrates, that belief, no matter how commonly held, might be mistaken.

The EEOC and I disagree on a lot. (See criminal background checks as hiring criteria). Yet, on this issue, we are on the same page. It strikes me as appalling that in the year 2012 there are still minority groups against whom it remains facially legal to discriminate. Already, 21 states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment, 16 of which also prohibit gender identity discrimination; another 140 cities and counties have similar laws. Many companies have also made the private decision to prohibit this type of discrimination in their individual workplaces.

For the uncovered, this EEOC decision signals that the time is coming when this type of discrimination will no longer be an open issue. I suggest you get on the bandwagon now, and send a signal to all of your employees that you are a business of inclusion, not one of bigotry and exclusion.

[Hat tip: The Proactive Employer / Stephanie Thomas]

More social media woes: employee fired for “liking” gay Facebook page

According to MSNBC, an employee has sued the Library of Congress for firing him after his manager discovered that he had “liked” the “Two Dads” page on Facebook. The employee, Peter TerVeer, claims that after his manager discovered he was gay, his performance reviews turned negative. TerVeer also claims that the manager started making derogatory statements about his sexual orientation and sending religiously motivated emails.

Let me offer three takeaways for businesses from this story:

1. Title VII, like Ohio’s anti-discrimination statute, does not protect sexual orientation. Nevertheless, courts have been known to stretch the definition of gender to include sexual orientation in certain cases. Even if TerVeer doesn’t have a sex discrimination claim, the religious overtones of the manager’s emails could provide a claim based on religion.

2. Much has been made lately about employers snooping on employees’ social media activities. According to nbclosangeles.com, however, the manager only learned about TerVeer’s Facebook activities when the manager’s daughter noticed the “like” and told her dad. This fact underscores what Lafe Solomon (the NLRB’s acting general counsel) told me when we appeared on NPR together last fall—that every social media charge filed with the NLRB started with a co-worker printing out the social media post and giving the hard copy to a manager. In other words, management as much of a hobby out of snooping on its employees as some would have you believe.

3. Despite this story’s foreboding tone, employers should not think that all employees’ off-work activities are off-limits. Nevertheless, this story underscores that employers need to tread very carefully when examining what their employees do on their own time.

Ohio federal court recognizes sexual orientation as a protected class for public employees

After Cuyahoga County fired Shari Hutchinson, she sued, claiming that her employer terminated her because she is a lesbian, in violation of her constitutional equal protection rights. In Hutchinson v. Cuyhoga County Board of County Commissioners (N.D. Ohio 4/25/11) [pdf], the employer sought dismissal on the ground that sexual orientation is not a protected class. The court overturned the motion and permitted the sexual orientation discrimination claim to proceed to discovery.

The court agreed with the employer that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Because Hutchinson was a public employee proceeding under the United States Constitution, Title VII did not define the court’s limits. Instead, the court concluded that it could analyze the sexual orientation claim

The Court concludes that an employee who alleges sexual orientation discrimination … is not per se precluded from establishing an equal protection claim against her employer.  Simply because Title VII does not include sexual orientation as a statutorily protected class does not, in this Court’s view, automatically remove all constitutional protection where a plaintiff employee claims equal protection violations based on her membership in that class…. Though sexual orientation may not be a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the Court finds that constitutional disparate treatment claims alleging sexual orientation discrimination by a public employer at least garner the bare minimum of rational basis review.

Pundits are lauding this decision as groundbreaking. In reality, the court refused to lift sexual orientation to special status as a suspect or quasi-suspect—such as race or sex. Instead, it simply requires public employers to treat all of its employees on equal footing. As a result, it will remain more difficult for public employees to prove sexual orientation discrimination than race or sex discrimination. Nevertheless, this case is a step in the right direct in recognizing some degree of protection for sexual orientation.

There are two more important points to make about this case:

1. This decision only affects public employees. It has no impact on private employees, who still must proceed under Title VII (which does provide some limited protections for sexual orientation based on gender stereotypes).
2. Hutchinson still most prove that her employer treated her differently because of her sexual orientation. This decision merely gives her the opportunity to try to prove the unlawfulness of her termination. Rest assured that the 6th Circuit (and, potentially) the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to weigh in on this charged issue.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.