Denying gender-affirming health care to transgender employees is unlawful discrimination

Morgan Mesi, a transgender man, has just sued his former employer, Tenzing Wine & Spirits, along with his labor union and group health plan, claiming that they discriminated against him because of his sex by denying medical insurance coverage for gender-affirming care.

To me, Bostock v. Clayton Cty. clearly resolves this issue. In Bostock, SCOTUS held that Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination also prohibits discrimination because of an employee's sexual orientation or gender identity. Indeed, Bostock could not have been clearer regarding the treatment of transgender employees: "[a]n individual's … transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions."

WIRTW #699: the “Mackrell” edition

One of my primary business development goals for 2023 was for Wickens Herzer Panza to join a law firm network.

Mission accomplished!

WHP is the new Ohio member firm for Mackrell International. MI is a strongly connected, vetted, and trusted network of more than 4,500 lawyers across 90+ independent law firms and 170+ offices worldwide. Instantly, WHP transforms from a stalwart mid-size local firm to an international conglomerate with access to thousands of trusted lawyers across the country and around the globe.

We at WHP couldn't be more excited for what this new relationship means to us and our clients. Becoming part of the MI family and expanding our platform outside of our state to a national and international scale significantly adds to our capabilities and our ability to service our clients.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

Coincidence ≠ causation

An employer terminates a group of 14 employees within six weeks after learning that they were discussing unionizing.

Despite the timing of the mass termination of these employees, the 8th Circuit — in Strategic Technology Institute v. NLRB — reversed and concluded that anti-union animus did not motivate the terminations. 

WIRTW #698: the “heads will roll” edition

It's not every day that John Oliver happens to feature one of your Worst Employer nominees the very same week that you open the polls to vote for said Worst Employer. 

The video:

* The John Oliver story is not an endorsement of this employer as the Worst Employer of 2023. 

If you want to have your say on who should win, make sure to vote prior to Wed., 12/13 at 11:59 pm eastern time.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

A lesson in how NOT to testify

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik: Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

UPenn President Liz Magill: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.

Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

Magill: If it is directed, and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.

Stefanik: So the answer is yes.

Magill: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.

Stefanik: It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today, calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest question to answer. Yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes? Yes or no?

Magill: If the speech becomes conduct. It can be harassment, yes.

Stefanik: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide. The speech is not harassment. This is unacceptable. Ms. Magill, I'm gonna give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's Code of Conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

Magill: It can be harassment.

Stefanik: The answer is yes.

It’s illegal for gay people to discriminate against straight people … just not on these facts in this case

There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, whether the victim is, for example, Black or white, female or male, gay or straight. When the employee claiming discrimination is in the majority, however, in the 6th Circuit they must not only show disparate treatment, but also must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

Which brings us to the story of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services for sex discrimination under Title VII claiming that her lesbian supervisor discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation. Ames claimed that OHYS passed her over for a promotion, demoted her, and promoted a gay man to her former position.

VOTE for the Worst Employer of 2023

It's the most wonderful time of the year. I've made my list. I've checked it twice. Now it's time to find out who's naughtiest and not very nice. It's voting time for The Worst Employer of 2023.

I've culled my list of 10 nominees down to the worst 7 as finalists.