Supreme Court grants review in three cases to decide, once and for all, whether Title VII protects LGBTQ employees from discrimination

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals in three cases, to decide whether Title VII's prohibition against "sex discrimination" expressly includes prohibitions against LGBTQ discrimination.

Does Title VII protect heterosexuals from discrimination?

So meet, ROBERTa! Shopping in the women’s department for a swimsuit at the BR Target. For all of you people that say you don’t care what bathroom it’s using, you’re full of shit!! Let this try to walk in the women’s bathroom while my daughters are in there!! #hellwillfreezeoverfirst

Suppose you own a company, and one of your employees posts this rant on her personal Facebook page. Further suppose that in addition to owning the company, you are also a lesbian, and take offense to the employee's views. If you discipline the employee for her Facebook post, and later fire the employee after she complains about the discipline, can the employee sue for retaliation under Title VII? In other words, does Title VII protect heterosexuals from discrimination in reaction to anti-LGBTQ speech?

In O'Daniel v. Industrial Service Solutions, the 5th Circuit said no.

The case put the plaintiff, unabashedly and vocally anti-LGBTQ (as expressed in the at-issue Facebook post), in the position of arguing that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Court held that under its own precedent, O'Daniel could not move forward on her claim.

O'Daniel claims in essence that she was retaliated against because she "opposed" discrimination perpetrated against her on the basis of her heterosexual orientation.… Title VII in plain terms does not cover "sexual orientation." … Because the law in this circuit is clear, we cannot accept O'Daniel’s … suggestions that this panel either overrule the precedents or assume arguendo that the "trend" has upended them.

Thus, because the 5th Circuit does not recognize sexual orientation as class Title VII protects, and employee's complaints about her employer discriminating against her because she is heterosexual could not support a retaliation claim: "Title VII protects an employee only from retaliation for complaining about the types of discrimination it prohibits."

Two points to make about this opinion.

First, if Title VII equates LGBTQ discrimination to "sex" discrimination (as I, like many other courts and the EEOC, believe it does), then logic says that it must also protect heterosexuals from discrimination at the hands of the LGBTQ community because of their sexual orientation. Any other result is logically inconsistent.

Secondly, this employee was not fired because she complained about discrimination. She was fired because she exhibited extremely poor judgment through her Facebook rant. As the concurring opinion succinctly and correctly states: "Simply put, Title VII does not grant employees the right to make online rants about gender identity with impunity." If the employee ranted against interracial marriage, and the company's African-American owner fired her, would anyone think she has a valid claim? This case is no different. The law protects the employee from discrimination and retaliation, but it does not protect the employee's right to express bigoted views, on her personal Facebook page or otherwise.

* Photo by Jim Wilson on Unsplash

WIRTW #549 (the #RespectIsComing edition)

You might have heard that a little show called Game of Thrones premiered it's final season last Sunday. In its honor, Sesame Street prepared a wonderful parody in which Elmo tries to mend bridges between Tyrion and Cersei by teaching them the importance of respect.

A lesson we should all to take to heart, especially at work.


Here's what I read this week:

How to fire an employee

The Wall Street Journal recently asked this simple question:

What's the Best Way to Fire Someone?

I have some thoughts.

Bathroom conversations aren't private conversations

Michael Woods, a mortgage banker at Quicken Loans, was having a bad day at work. A customer Woods had helped four years ago had been trying to get in touch with a Client Specialist; the company routed the call to Woods because of their prior relationship. He aired his grievance to a co-worker, Austin Laff, while they were in the bathroom together. "The client should get in touch with a fucking Client Care Specialist and quit wasting my fucking time."

Jorge Mendez, a supervisor, overheard this conversation from a stall. He responded with an all-employee email reminding everyone of proper conduct in public areas. "Never, EVER, should we be swearing in the bathroom especially about clients."

That's how the ball bounces: 6th Circuit says that the ADA does not require a new supervisor as a reasonable accommodation

Cindy Tinsley was so stressed.

How stressed was she?

She was so stressed that even something as simple as her co-workers at Caterpillar Financial Services bouncing stress balls off the ground would trigger her post-traumatic stress disorder.

Maybe you should rethink telling your employee you're firing him becaus of his heart problems

Jonathan Baum worked as a scheduler for Metro Restoration Services. In late 2014, he began have cardiac problems. Over the course of the next several months, he went to the ER fearing a heart attack, had a heart catheter implanted, had an echocardiogram, and wore a heart monitor. He occasionally also missed work for medical tests and treatments, and sometimes worked remotely. His boss, and the owner of Metro, Patrick Cahill, was aware of all of Baum's medical issues.

Following a work day on which Baum had worked remotely from his home. Cahill fired him. The expressly stated reason: "health issues and doctors' appointments."

Oops.