SCOTUS: LGBTQ Protected Class Under Civil Rights Act of 1964

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC
Contact

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

In a landmark decision issued yesterday, the Supreme Court of the Unites States ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender people. The case involved consolidated lawsuits filed by two gay persons fired due to their sexual orientation and a transgender woman fired after revealing plans to transition from male to female. The employers and the Trump administration argued that Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect LGBTQ persons and the term "sex" did not cover gay and transgender status.

In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority held that an "employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Explaining further, "[s]ex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids." The Court also clarified that an employer who intentionally fires a homosexual or transgender employee, even in part, because of this sex-based status "violates the law even if the employer is willing to subject all male and female homosexual or transgender employees to the same rule."

Prior to this decision, most federal courts interpreted Title VII to exclude sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. This ruling significantly alters the landscape of Title VII sex-based discrimination claims and is the most significant ruling on gay rights since the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right for gay couples to marry in 2015.

While the Court refused to speculate as to how their ruling would apply to other federal or state laws prohibiting sex discrimination, future legal challenges are expected. It is, however, worth noting that the Court's decision rested on a statutory interpretation of Title VII, which could be amended in the future.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC
Contact
more
less

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.