EEOC Signals Intent to Process and Litigate Claims of Sexual Orientation Discrimination Under Title VII

20 October 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Signaling its intent to pursue its viewpoint that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (including transgender identity), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken several recent steps to advance its theory that Title VII’s statutory term “sex” has broad application within the meaning of the federal employment discrimination law. According to the EEOC, Title VII’s general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex encompasses more specific prohibitions on certain acts of sexual orientation discrimination under a sex stereotyping theory and prohibits employers from taking sex or gender, as well as perceptions regarding gender roles, into consideration when making employment decisions.

In recent weeks, the Commission has filed lawsuits against a funeral home in Michigan and an eye care clinic in Florida alleging unlawful discrimination against male-to-female transsexual employees. Additionally, the agency recently filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) asking the appellate court to reconsider a ruling earlier this year finding that Title VII does not bar sexual orientation discrimination based on the reasoning that while the law extends to a person’s gender, it does not extend to a person’s sexual orientation. In taking all these actions, the EEOC is suggesting it will be increasingly likely to litigate claims of alleged sexual orientation discrimination and process charges of discrimination under such a theory until and unless the Supreme Court rules that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex specifically excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

What does this mean for employers? For many, it may not have much practical effect because some state or local laws already prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender identity. Many other employers already prohibit discrimination based on any identifying characteristics regardless of what federal or state laws apply to them, and this is certainly a good practice for employers to follow in all jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the EEOC’s actions signal that it will continue to view Title VII – the 50-year-old federal employment discrimination law – as a living and evolving statute broad enough to cover many theories of discrimination not specifically enumerated in the law in our ever-evolving sociopolitical world. As always, the EEOC’s actions serve as a good reminder for employers to approach all employment decisions with a clear focus on merit alone and document the legitimate reasons for all employment decisions.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
DHS Moves Closer to Launching its H-1B Cap Registration System
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Be Aware of Potential Legal Restrictions When Implementing a Workplace Weapons Policy
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
EEO-1 Component 2 Filing Deadline is Just Days Away – But Employers May Be Off the Hook Next Year
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.