Cuyahoga County bans LGBTQ discrimination

Cuyahoga County, Ohio, my home county, has lately been on the receiving end of some bad press. Season 3 of Serial just landed on your podcast app of choice, and it does not portray my county's criminal justice system in the most positive of lights.

So, today, I thought I'd share something positive from Cuyahoga County.

Yesterday, the County Council passed legislation prohibiting LGBTQ discrimination in employment, as well as housing and public accommodations.

Keep an eye on this 8th Circuit LGBT-discrimiation case

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has been asked to decide if Title VII expressly protects gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees.

The case—Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Management—involves an individual who lost his conditional job offer after, he claims, the owners of the company discovered his sexual orientation.

The 8th Circuit will be the 5th federal circuit to rule on this issue.

When losing is really winning: SCOTUS rules in favor of bakery in gay wedding cake dispute, but…

A lot of digital ink has been spilled in the last day decrying the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission as a win for the religious right and a step backward for LGBT rights. I was guilty of a little Twitter hyperbole myself after a quick first scan of the opinion.

Also, this does not give me a ton of hope that #SCOTUS will get LGBT employment issues right when that issue reaches them.

Then I sat down and read the opinion.

The other side of diversity

Photo by Igor Ovsyannykov on Unsplash

Workplace diversity has two sides.

One side says that employers cannot discriminate against minorities. The other says that employers cannot discriminate against non-minorities in favor of minorities.

Some people call this reverse discrimination. I just call it discrimination.

Tattoos at work: more acceptance, yet still some legal risk

By ABC TV [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons

I am not a tattoo person. Yet, a whole lot of people are. And the numbers are increasing.

In fact, according to one recent survey, 3 in 10 Americans have at least one tattoo, up 50% in just four years. And, the younger you are, the more likely you are to sport a tattoo: 47% of millennials have a tattoo, as compared to 36% of gen Xers and only 13% of baby boomers.

6th Circuit is the latest court to conclude that Title VII expressly prohibits LGBT discrimination

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

Yesterday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals joined a growing number of federal appellate courts to hold that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination expressly covers LGBT employees.

The claimant in EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes [pdf], Aimee Stevens (formerly known as Anthony Stephens) was born biologically male, and presented as such when hired. The funeral home’s owner and operator, Thomas Rost, fired her shortly after she informed him that she intended to transition from male to female and would represent herself and dress as a woman while at work.

2nd Circuit holds that Title VII expressly bars sexual orientation discrimination as sex discrimination

Photo by Matias Rengel on Unsplash

Yesterday, the 2nd Circuit federal court of appeals (which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) held that “Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as discrimination ‘because of … sex.’”

With its decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express [pdf], the 2nd Circuit joins the 7th Circuit, and the EEOC in interpreting Title VII as such.

My thoughts on this issue are well documented throughout the archives.

There is no *good* reason to be anti-LGBTQ rights

Last week I presented a webinar entitled, “The Top 10 Employee Handbook Mistakes.”

I discussed, among other policies, missing at-will disclaimers, salary discussion bans, failing to define the FMLA leave-year, inflexible leave of absence policies, and omitted or ineffective harassment policies.

I also discussed anti-discrimination policies that ignore LGBTQ employment rights.

During the LGBTQ section of the webinar, I provided the legal background on the issue (Title VII is silent, some states and municipalities have acted, and the EEOC and federal courts have stepped up to otherwise fill in Title VII’s gap).

I then issued this challenge to the attendees—

“Be on the right side of history.”

Trump flip-flops on LGBTQ workplace discrimination

“As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens.…”

Those were the words of then nominee Donald J. Trump at least year’s Republican Convention.

What’s missing from those words?

“…Unless you’re at work. Then you’re screwed.”

Yesterday, Trump’s White House announced that it will urge the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that Title VII does not ban discrimination against gay employees. The court will decide whether, in that Circuit, Title VII’s definition of “sex” includes LGBTQ individuals. (The 7th Circuit has already says that it does.)

Are you tired of hearing me rant about this issue? Tired of hearing me tell you that it is shameful that in 2017 there still exists a group of people that the law does not clearly protect from discrimination? 

Well, I hope not. Because I’m going to keep doing it until this country WAKES UP and comes to its senses.

You can read my long history of support for LGBTQ workplace rights here.

Is LGBT discrimination finally coming to a head?

Two stories this week caught my attention:

• EEOC Sues Malcolm S. Gerald & Associates for Sexual Orientation Discrimination; and
• Is the EEOC going “wishy-washy” on LGBT rights at work?

Listen to me on the Talent10x podcast discuss the current state of LGBTQ discrimination

I have enjoyed a long and fruitful relationship with Workforce Magazine. I’ve been blogging at workforce.com for the past five-plus years. I write a monthly column for the magzine. And, I serve on its editorial advisory board. Now, you can also add “podcaster” to my Workforce CV.

Justice Department takes a stand in favor of LGBTQ discrimination

LGBTQ prohibitions continue to make headway in the courts. While Congress has remained silent on the issue, more and more state and federal courts hold that the law’s existing prohibitions against sex discrimination implicitly cover sexual orientation and other forms of LGBTQ discrimination.

The latest appellate court to take up this issue in the 2nd Circuit, in Zarda v. Altitude Express. Just last week, the Department of Justice filed its amicus brief [pdf] in this case. Yet, in that brief, the DOJ argued that Title VII’s prohibition against sexual stereotyping as sex discrimination does not include LGBTQ discrimination. This position advanced by the DOJ is contrary to that already espoused by the 7th Circuit, many district courts, and the EEOC.

Federal court breaks new ground with transgender disability discrimination claim

The ADA expressly excludes from its coverage “transvestism, transsexualism, … [and] gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments….”

Thus, it should be an easy call for a court to dismiss a lawsuit in which an employee, born a male but who identifies and presents as a female, alleges disability discrimination because of her gender identity disorder.

Right?

6th Circuit tees up decision on LGBT discrimination coverage under Title VII

The 6th Circuit is currently considering whether Title VII’s definition of “sex discrimination”.

EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes alleges that the funeral home fired its funeral director because she is transgender and transitioning from male to female. The Eastern District of Michigan concluded that Title VII does not expressly cover LGTB discrimination, and limited the sex discrimination claim to a sexual stereotyping claim.

7th Circuit historically holds that Title VII expressly bans LGBT discrimination

If you spend any time reading or watching the news today, you will inevitably encounter much about the 7th Circuit’s historic (and correct, in my opinion) decision in Hivley v. Ivy Tech Community College [pdf]. You can read the background of this case here.

The court expressly held that “a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes.” Hivley now stands in direct contradiction to the opinion of the 11th Circuit in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp., which sets up this issue for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

The 11th Circuit’s odd LGBT-discrimination decision

Late last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp. [pdf], held that Title VII does not protect sexual-orientation discrimination per se, and that to sufficiently plead such a cause of action under Title VII, one must allege facts sufficient to establish that the employer discriminated based on non-conformity with sex-based stereotypes. 

As such, this decision directly conflicts with the formal position of the EEOC (a priority that EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum announced will not change under President Trump), and expected decision by the 2nd and 7th Circuits.

SCOTUS reverses decision to review transgender bathroom case

Yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision that would have heard the appeal of a 4th Circuit opinion granting a transgender boy the right to use the bathroom of his identified gender.

The decision comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s policy change [pdf], which revoked the Obama administration’s guidance that protected the bathroom rights of transgender students in public schools.

Will the 7th Circuit ban LGBT employment discrimination?

Those of you who have been reading this blog for any length of time should know that I strongly believe that it is a national embarrassment that LGBT employment discrimination remains legal. Sure, the EEOC believes that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination covers LGBT discrimination. But, despite what it may think, the EEOC does not make law, it merely enforces laws made by others. And, yes, some federal courts are starting to come around to believing that Title VII covers LGBT discrimination. Yet, until either Congress amends Title VII to expressly cover LGBT discrimination, or all federal courts conclude that Title VII already covers it, employers are compliance limbo.

Federal court recognizes LGBT employment discrimination as illegal under Title VII

It’s been more than a year since the EEOC first announced that it would accept LGBT-discrimination charges as sex-discrimination charges under Title VII. Last week, the EEOC finally got a federal court to agree with its position in a LBGT-discrimination-is-sex-discrimination lawsuit.

Federal court's rejection of LGBT discrimination claim on religious grounds has scary implications

Last week, a Michigan federal judge rejected the EEOC’s claim that Title VII covers transgender status or gender identity as protected classes.

In EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes (E.D. Mich. 8/18/16) [pdf], the agency pursued a sex-discrimination claim on behalf of the Funeral Home’s former funeral director, Stephens, who is transgender and transitioning from male to female. The EEOC claimed that the Funeral Home “fired Stephens because Stephens is transgender, because of Stephens’s transition from male to female, and/or because Stephens did not conform to [the Funeral Home’s] sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes.”

The court rejected that claim on several grounds, including the Funeral Homes’s religious beliefs as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This basis for the holding greatly troubles me.