Transgender and Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Protections — Maybe not yet the Law of the Land, but Your Policies Better Include Them

18 May 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Though most Americans do not seem to realize it, anti-discrimination legal protections in employment for transgender, gay, bisexual, and lesbian (LGBT) employees are not uniform across the U.S. In fact, the federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would amend Title VII to explicitly include these protected categories, has never passed. Therefore, it is still legal to fire, discipline, or even harass employees in the many states and local jurisdictions that lack these employment law protections.

But does that reasoning really hold true? The ever-evolving state of the law in this area shows this reasoning is weak and provides strong support for employers including protections in equal employment opportunity (EEO), anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation policies for all their LGBT employees.

Transgender employees are most directly protected from employment discrimination under current laws such as Title VII —by the legal theory of “gender stereotyping.” The U.S. Supreme Court back in 1989 ruled that employers may not decide to fire or otherwise discriminate in employment due to an employee’s failure to conform with norms of that person’s gender. A female who acts too “manly” would be covered by this protection; but, so too would a female who starts to transition to become a man and whose employer fires him for starting to act too “manly.” Thus, even without express protections under federal Title VII, a transgender employee may be protected from discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal courts of appeal around the country have readily found this gender stereotyping theory prohibits such discrimination against the transgendered. The U.S. Department of Justice also takes the position that transgender employees are always covered by Title VII. As such, current law supports all employers including this protected category in their policies.

This same theory of gender stereotyping has also been found to apply, though less frequently, to claims by gay or lesbian employees. Effeminate gay men, for example, have been found by courts to state claims under Title VII for perceived failure to conform to a masculine gender role.

At the same time that courts and administrative agencies are recognizing these types of lawsuits by LGBT employees, local and state lawmakers are also continuing to add these types of protections. Utah became the most recent state, in early 2015, to protect LGBT employees from discrimination. Under the ever-evolving laws in this area, multistate and multi-city employers never know exactly when their employees may be protected by such anti-discrimination statutes.

Finally, as we have reported, federal contractors are now required to provide anti-discrimination protections to LGBT employees, regardless of whether the jurisdiction in which the employees work have such protections under state or local laws.

Employers that do not currently include “gender identity or expression” and “sexual orientation” as protected categories in their employment policies should strongly consider adding them for the legal protections they will provide.

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.

Insights