Tag: LGBT

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling in Favor of LGBTQ Employees in the Workplace

Yesterday, in a much-anticipated opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that federal anti-discrimination laws protect LGBTQ employees in the workplace. This ruling provides much needed clarity for employers and resolves a court split in which some federal courts recognized that federal law prohibited LGBTQ discrimination, while others (including those covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) stated that LGBTQ discrimination was not unlawful.

This landmark ruling, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, arises out of three different appeals. In two of the cases, the employees were fired despite having long and successful careers after their employers learned that they were homosexual. In the third case, an employee who initially presented herself as a male announced several years later that she planned to transition to “living and working full-time as a woman.” The employer terminated her immediately.

The law at issue – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) – prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. However, the law makes no mention of sexual orientation.

Nevertheless, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that all three terminations were illegal. In doing so, the Court noted that “[a]n 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. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Although several states and municipalities have passed laws and rules prohibiting all or at least some forms of LGBTQ discrimination, this ruling clarifies that both sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity/transgender discrimination are prohibited by federal law throughout the United States.

The federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII provides the following examples of LGBTQ-related conduct that it considers to be unlawful:

  • Refusing to hire an applicant because she is a transgender woman.
  • Firing an employee because he is planning or has made a gender transition.
  • Denying an employee equal access to a common restroom corresponding to the employee’s gender identity.
  • Harassing a woman because she does not dress or talk in a feminine manner.
  • Harassing a man because he dresses in an effeminate manner or enjoys hobbies that are traditionally associated with women.
  • Harassing an employee because of a gender transition, such as by intentionally and persistently failing to use the name and gender pronoun that correspond to the gender identity with which the employee identifies, and which the employee has communicated to management and employees.
  • Denying an employee a promotion because he is gay or straight.
  • Paying a lower salary to an employee because of sexual orientation.
  • Denying spousal health insurance benefits to a female employee because her legal spouse is a woman, while providing spousal health insurance to a male employee whose legal spouse is a woman.
  • Harassing an employee because of his/her sexual orientation (e.g., derogatory terms, sexually oriented comments, or disparaging remarks for associating with a person of the same or opposite sex).
  • Discriminating against or harassing an employee because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity, in combination with another unlawful reason, for example, on the basis of transgender status and race, or sexual orientation and disability.

The penalties for non-compliance can be significant, including potential for significant emotional distress and other compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

This ruling is particularly significant to employers in jurisdictions like Florida that did not recognize that LGBTQ discrimination was unlawful under federal law. In light of this decision, employers should immediately take the following proactive steps to prevent and prohibit LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace:

  • Review your handbooks and anti-discrimination policies to ensure that sexual orientation and other LGBTQ-related status are included in your list of legally protected categories.
  • Consider adopting policies and procedures protecting the rights of transgender employees. For example, a transgender woman must be allowed to use a common female restroom or locker room facility, and dress code policies should permit employees to follow the dress code matching their gender identity.
  • Update your discrimination and harassment training modules to ensure that LGBTQ-related discrimination and harassment is addressed. Such training should include specific examples of what types of conduct could constitute unlawful discrimination. Managers and human resources personnel in particular need to be made aware that LGBTQ discrimination is unlawful and will not be tolerated.

In addition, employers will need to closely follow EEOC guidance and case law that follows this ruling. For example, as Justice Alito mentioned in his dissenting opinion, it is unclear what impact this ruling will have on employees who want their employers to pay for sex reassignment surgery and treatment.

© 2007-2020 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

For more on SCOTUS’s recent decision, see the National Law Review Civil Rights law section.

Supreme Court Rules Title VII Bars Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Today, June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers.  The Court held that employers who discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity unlawfully intend to rely on sex in their decision-making. Justice Gorsuch, along with Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberal justices of the Court, wrote, in deciding the question of whether an employer can fire an individual for being homosexual or transgender: “the answer is clear.”  Specifically, “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.  Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”  Ultimately, “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia consisted of three individual employment cases, all of which involved an employer terminating the employment of a long-time employee shortly after the employee revealed the he or she was homosexual or transgender.  Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia for over ten years and was fired shortly after participating in a gay recreational softball league.  The reason given for his termination was an allegation of misspent funds and “conduct unbecoming of a county employee;” however, Bostock argued that was pretense and the real motivation for his termination was his sexual orientation.  Both the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII did not include protection against discrimination towards sexual orientation.

In Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Donald Zara worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express in New York.  Zarda worked for the company for several years and his employment was terminated shortly after mentioning to his employer that he was gay.  While the District Court ruled in favor of the employer, the Second Circuit ruled that Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Lastly, in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Aimee Stephens, a funeral home employee in Garden City, Michigan, who originally presented herself as a male upon hiring, revealed to her employer during her sixth year of employment that she would be transitioning and working and living full-time as a woman.  Shortly thereafter, she was dismissed from her job due to her transition.  Initially, the District Court found for the funeral home on two bases: (1) Title VII did not protect transgender persons nor gender identity, and (2) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permitted the funeral home to make employment decisions based on faith.  The Sixth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that Title VII’s “discrimination by sex” does include transgender persons and also that the funeral home had failed to show how Title VII interfered with its owner’s religious expression.

Given the split among the circuit courts, the Supreme Court took up this trio of cases to render a clear determination as to whether sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories under Title VII.  This case of first impression signifies a key development in the interpretation and meaning of discrimination on the basis of “sex” under Title VII.  The opinion resolved the issue of whether those who drafted Title VII could have intended protection of these classes, with Justice Gorsuch explaining: “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s con­sequences that have become apparent over the years, in­cluding its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination sup­ply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the ex­press terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Employers must ensure that their policies, including their equal employment opportunity, harassment, and discrimination policies, reflect this opinion and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  In addition to these policy matters, employers should take actions to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and communicate the development in the law to employees and key decision makers in the company.

The full opinion can be found here.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

For more on the SCOTUS Title VII decision, see the National Law Review Civil Rights law section.

BREAKING: US Supreme Court Rules Title VII Protects LGBTQ Employees

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The opinion, released on June 15, 2020, was a consolidation of three federal appellate court decisions—Bostock v. Clayton County; Altitude Express v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In each case, the employer terminated the plaintiff after learning that he or she was gay or transgender.

In Bostock, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held Title VII did not protect an employee against discrimination because of his or her sexual orientation, relying on circuit precedent. The 2nd Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Zarda, concluding an employer discriminated on the basis of sex (including gender stereotypes) when it terminated a long-time employee. In R.G. & G.R., the 6th Circuit held Title VII protected against discrimination based on an employee’s transgender or transitioning status because such discrimination is grounded in an employee’s failure to conform to gender stereotypes.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, analyzed whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status is fundamentally sex discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes—an issue already determined to fall within Title VII’s scope.

In its analysis, the majority used the example of an employer who has a policy of firing any employee who is known to be gay. According to the Court, if a model employee brings a female spouse to an office holiday party and the employee is then fired due to also being female rather than male, the employer discriminated on the basis of sex, even if the intent was to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Similarly, the Court reasoned that an employer cannot discriminate against one of two otherwise identical female employees because she was identified as a male at birth. In doing so “the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth.” Accordingly, such discrimination is indistinguishable from sex discrimination.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, authored one of two dissenting opinions. Justice Alito’s primary points of disagreement with the majority were: (1) the definition of “sex,” as understood by the legislators who authored Title VII, does not include sexual orientation or transgender status; and (2) Congress has had opportunities to amend Title VII to expressly include such protections but has failed to do so.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent relied on his interpretation of the “ordinary meaning” of Title VII, which he concluded does not include protections for sexual orientation or transgender status. As such, Justice Kavanaugh reasoned it was not the Court’s role to expand the scope of Title VII. Despite his disagreement with the majority, Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent concluded with a congratulatory note to those he would deny Title VII’s protections, “Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.”

The upshot of the Court’s Bostock decision is effectively an expansion of Title VII’s antidiscrimination protections to LGBTQ employees. While many employers already have policies prohibiting discrimination because of sexual orientation and/or transgender status, this decision presumably authorizes EEOC charges and Title VII claims for such discrimination.

© 2020 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

For more on discrimination protections see the National Law Review Civil Rights law section.

Can an Employee be Fired for Being Gay or Transgender?

HR Professionals will soon know the answer to this question.

The United States Supreme Court is preparing to settle a contentious debate on employee protections under federal employment discrimination laws.  On October 7th, the Court returned from its summer break to start the new term.  The Court did not have to wait long before it tackled a complex case because on October 8th, the Court heard two major oral arguments with potentially far-reaching implications for both employers and employees.  Both cases focus on the prohibitions in employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”).  Under Title VII, Congress made it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.”  The question that the Court will address is whether employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited employment discrimination “because of sex.”

The first case the Court heard was a consolidated matter involving cases from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda) and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia), both of which involve men who claim they were fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.

Second Circuit: “Sex” is Necessarily a Factor in Sexual Orientation

The plaintiff in Zarda, Donald Zarda, was a skydiving instructor, who died in 2014.  Prior to his death, a female client complained that Zarda inappropriately touched her during a jump.  At some point, Zarda communicated to the client that he was a homosexual and “had an ex-husband,” a practice that Zarda stated he often did with female clients to put them at ease.  Altitude Express terminated Zarda in connection with the complaint; however, Zarda insisted he was fired solely because of his reference to his sexual orientation.

A federal district court granted summary judgment against Zarda, reasoning that his claim was not cognizable under Title VII.  However, the Second Circuit reversed, with a majority of the court believing that sexual orientation discrimination is motivated by sex and, therefore, a “subset of sex discrimination.”  Thus, the Second Circuit concluded that federal law prohibits the firing of an employee on the basis of sexual orientation.  Notably, the court reached this conclusion by taking a broad interpretation of the meaning of the text “because of sex.”  Specifically, the court reasoned that Title VII must protect sexual orientation “because sex is necessarily a factor in sexual orientation.”

Eleventh Circuit: Discharge for Homosexuality Not Prohibited by Title VII

The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.  The plaintiff in Bostock, Gerald Bostock, was a Child Welfare Services Coordinator in Clayton County for over ten years.  Although Bostock had received good performance reviews for his work, an internal audit was conducted on his program’s funds.  Bostock, who is gay, claimed the audit was a “pretext for discrimination against him because of his sexual orientation.”  During an advisory meeting, where Bostock’s supervisor was present, at least one person criticized Bostock’s sexual orientation and his participation in a gay softball league.

After his complaint was dismissed at the district court level, Bostock appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.  Referring back to a 1979 decision, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that it had already held that “[d]ischarge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”  While hinting that this earlier ruling may have been wrong, the court held that it had no choice but to follow precedent and affirm the dismissal of Bostock’s claim.

Sixth Circuit: Discrimination on the Basis of Transgender and Transitioning Status is Necessarily Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

The second case, Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, presents a similar question to Zarda and Bostock.  That is, whether employees can be fired based on their status as transgender.

The case involves Aimee Stephens, who was a funeral director and embalmer for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes.  While working in this position for six years, Stephens dressed and presented herself as a man without issue.  However, once Stephens communicated that she wanted to live and work as a woman before having sex-reassignment surgery, she was terminated.  The owner of the funeral home, a devout Christian, admitted that Stephens was fired because she “was no longer going to represent himself as a man.  He wanted to dress as a woman.”  The owner believed this change would violate “God’s commands.”

After Stephens filed a discrimination charge, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) pursued a complaint on her behalf against the funeral home.  In ruling in favor of the employer, the district court reasoned that transgender status is not a protected trait under Title VII and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) precludes the EEOC from enforcing Title VII in this instance as doing so would substantially burden the employer’s religious exercise.  The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that “discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex.”  The court further ruled that the RFRA did not apply to protect the funeral home’s actions because the funeral home was not a “religious institution,” and Stephens was not a “ministerial employee” excluded from Title VII’s protections.

Stakeholders: States, Federal Government, Employers, and Employees

The Supreme Court’s ruling in these cases, which is expected in the spring or summer of 2020, has the potential to be monumental because of the many stakeholders involved.  Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have barred sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by statute or regulation, as have a number of counties and municipalities.  While a few other states provide protection from this type of discrimination either by agency interpretation or court ruling, the remaining states in the country offer no protection under their state laws.  This means that LGBTQ individuals who live in states such as Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and even North Carolina (at least with respect to private employers) may have no remedy to this type of employment discrimination outside of Title VII.

Additionally, states who have passed laws in this area may face challenges in enforcing those laws if the Supreme Court decides that Title VII does not protect gay and transgender status.  Many of these states lean on the EEOC’s authority to investigate claims of discrimination against companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions, and the EEOC has been successful in partnering with states to investigate discrimination claims and enforce such actions.  However, states would lose EEOC assistance should the Court decide that Title VII’s scope does not extend to sexual orientation or gender identification.

Although the EEOC traditionally has been on the side of expanding Title VII protections, the federal government in the most recent litigation has aligned itself with the employers.  In particular, United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” does not apply to sexual orientation or gender identity.  Accepting this interpretation, Title VII is limited to barring employers from treating women different from men in the same or similar position, and vice-versa.

Equally important to the states’ and federal government’s interest is the interest of employers.  Companies have lined up on both sides of the debate with over 36 briefs filed in support of Bostock and Zarda, and over 24 briefs filed in support of Clayton County and Altitude Express.  For example, one brief filed in support of Bostock and Zarda includes 206 companies representing businesses such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Walt Disney, Coca-Cola, and Uber.  These businesses argued that interpreting Title VII to “exclude sexual orientation or gender identity from protections against sex discrimination would have wide-ranging, negative consequences for businesses, their employees, and the U.S. economy.”  In contrast, the C12 group that represents “the largest network of Christian CEOs, business owners, and executives in the United States” filed a separate brief in support of the employers arguing that interpreting “because of sex” in Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity ignores the natural meaning of the law, “thereby bypassing the political process, shutting down debate, preventing any accommodation of divergent views, and precluding any compromise.”

Makeup of the Court: The Deciding Vote

Prior to his retirement, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote in several gay rights cases.  However, Justice Kennedy is no longer on the bench, and these cases present the first opportunity for the public to see how his successor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, will vote on these issues.  Also, Justice Neil Gorsuch, successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, may play a key role in deciding these issues.  Similar to Scalia, it is believed that Justice Gorsuch is more inclined to rule that courts should naturally interpret statutes as they were meant when enacted.  Should Justice Gorsuch hold firm to this view, then there is some thought that he may conclude sexual orientation and gender identity were not meant to be included as discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII.  The perspectives of these new Justices are likely to dictate the Court’s ultimate decision – a decision which may directly impact the employment landscape for years to come.

© 2019 Ward and Smith, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more on Employment Protections, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment and Civil Rights law pages.

US Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Whether Title VII Prohibits LGBT Discrimination

After considering the petitions at eleven separate private conferences, on April 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three cases involving the extent of protection provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – if any – against employment-based discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  As we previously reported here, this issue has been watched closely by the nation, with multiple federal courts, government agencies, and employers reaching differing conclusions.  The Court consolidated the two sexual orientation cases, Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and allocated a total of one hour for oral argument for both cases.  In the gender identity case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., the Court limited its consideration to only the question of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 (1989).

The Court will hear argument in these cases next term, which means that it’s possible that a decision may not issue until as late as June 2020.  We will continue to update you with ongoing developments in these cases.

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

This post was written by Melissa Legault of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Read more on the US Supreme Court on the National Law Review’s Litigation Type of law Page.

The Changing Landscape of Sexual Orientation Discrimination Law

From the time Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 until earlier this year, federal courts have consistently held that the Act’s protections against employment discrimination did not apply to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, in March, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana) became the first court to rule the other way, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. What has occurred in federal courts in the wake of that decision, however, has only muddied the waters.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Prior to the Seventh Circuit’s notable decision, courts had only permitted gay employees to make claims of sex discrimination if the employee could show the discrimination occurred because the employee did not conform to gender stereotypes, not simply because of the employee’s sexual orientation. The Seventh Circuit found that the gender stereotype argument is unnecessary, stating “it is . . . impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex.”

The question is far from settled. In April, in a case involving a gay skydiving instructor who claims he was fired because of his sexual orientation, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that it could not follow the Seventh Circuit’s decision. It held that a three-judge panel could not overturn precedential decisions regarding Title VII’s application to sexual orientation discrimination. Such a ruling would require a review by the entire panel of judges. The Second Circuit has granted such a review (an en bancreview), indicating that perhaps the full panel of judges may be willing to follow the lead of the Seventh Circuit.

The picture becomes fuzzier still because of conflicting input from two government agencies. In preparation for its en banc review, the Second Circuit invited the EEOC to offer an opinion on the matter. The EEOC restated a stance it has held since 2012, saying sexual orientation discrimination is inextricably linked to gender and gender stereotypes and should fall under the protection of Title VII. However, on July 26, 2017, the Department of Justice filed a brief taking the opposite position. The DOJ argued Congress did not intend Title VII to apply to sexual orientation, and that expansion of the protection should be left to Congress, not implemented by the courts. The DOJ also says that the court owes no deference to the EEOC.

Because the federal circuits are now split on the issue, the question may eventually be decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Court has already been asked to review a case in which a former security guard at a Georgia hospital claims she was forced to quit because she was gay. The Court has not yet said whether it will hear the case. Ultimately, as the DOJ suggests, Congress could pass legislation to decide the issue one way or the other.

The takeaway from this flurry of activity is that this is an area of law that is very much in flux. For decades, the position of federal courts in regards to sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII was clear. Now, the landscape has shifted, and the ground is still settling. Employers should be aware that changes are happening quickly in this area and proceed cautiously when a situation potentially involving a sexual orientation discrimination claim arises.

This post was written by Mark G Jeffries of  Steptoe & Johnson PLLC.
Much more legal analysis at the National Law Review.

Lawmakers Continue Focus on TSA Wait Times, While House Spending Panel Approves TSA Funding for FY 2017; Government Officials React to Deadliest Shooting in US History, Worst Terror Attack Since 9/11

TSA wait linesLawmakers Continue Focus on TSA Wait Times, While House Spending Panel Approves TSA Funding for FY 2017

The House Appropriations Committee approved it draft FY 2017 homeland security appropriations measure on Thursday, June 9, including $7.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $163 million more than in FY 2016 and $21.8 million greater than the Obama Administration’s FY 2017 budget request.  The House Appropriations Committee has yet to approve a request from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for an additional $28 million to help keep airport security lines under control during the ongoing summer travel season.  The Senate Appropriations Committee, which has already approved of its FY 2017 homeland security spending measure increasing funds for TSA, has also signed off on the reallocated funds, the second such request from DHS this year.

On June 7, the House of Representatives approved legislation, the Checkpoint Optimization and Efficiency Act of 2016 (H.R. 5338), aimed at shortening TSA wait times.  The measure would direct both the TSA Administrator and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review TSA’s staffing allocation model.  The Act also requires the TSA Administrator to take a number of actions related to the agency’s staffing and resource allocation.  Across the Capitol, TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger testified before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing last week, where lawmakers encouraged the agency to increase access to PreCheck, an expedited security screening program.

This Week’s Hearings:

  • Tuesday, June 14: The House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will hold a hearing titled “Overstaying Their Welcome: National Security Risks Posed by Visa Overstays.”

  • Wednesday, June 15: The Senate Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing titled “America’s Insatiable Demand for Drugs: Examining Alternative Approaches.”

  • Thursday, June 16: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a meeting to consider pending legislation and nominations.

Executive Branch Activity

Government Officials React to Deadliest Shooting in US History, Worst Terror Attack Since 9/11

President Barack Obama, senior Administration officials, and lawmakers reacted to the shooting at a crowded Orlando nightclub filled with members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.  As of Sunday night, the shooting, which ended with police storming the club after a three-hour stand-off, had left 50 dead and at least 53 injured.  Reports indicated the alleged shooter had pledged allegiance to ISIS, making it the United States’ worst terror attack since September 11, 2001, and the deadliest mass shooting in the country’s history.

President Obama delivered remarks from the White House early in the day, confirming he had met with his homeland security and national security advisors and assuring Americans that he has “directed that the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation.”  Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered thoughts and prayers for the victims and thanked local law enforcement for their efforts responding to the attack, calling it “a sobering reminder that radical Islamists are targeting our country and our way of life.” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, echoed his House colleague, confirming that his committee “will work to support the federal role in investigating this terror attack and protecting against further threats.”  Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stated that senior agency officials “are dedicated to investigating this tragedy, along with the FBI and our state and local partners, and supporting the Orlando community in the tragedy’s aftermath.”  Secretary Johnson canceled planned travel to Beijing in light of the attack.

ARTICLE BY Ludmilla L. Savelieff & Clark Kent Ervin of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Arkansas Cities and Counties Provide Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections

A new civil rights law affording nondiscrimination protections for most lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender residents of Fayetteville, Arkansas, will go into effect on November 7, 2015.

Passed by the City Council and ratified by a popular vote in a Special Election held on September 8, 2015, the Uniform Civil Rights Protection ordinance (Ordinance 5781) prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. Declaring that “[t]he right of an otherwise qualified person to be free from discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity is the same right of every citizen to be free from discrimination because of race, religion, national origin, gender and disability as recognized and protected by the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993,” the Ordinance also protects anyone who opposes any act prohibited by the Ordinance or who participates in such an investigation.

Designed to overcome objections to a similar measure that was repealed in 2014, Ordinance 5781 exempts from its coverage any employer with fewer than nine employees, as well as any church, religious school or day school, and any other religious organization. It also includes an enforcement scheme that is conciliatory, rather than punitive, with civil fines imposed for violations.

Civil Rights Commission

Enforcement will be handled by a newly formed, seven-member Civil Rights Commission appointed by the City Council and comprised of representatives of the business community, owners or managers of rental property, and citizens at large (at least one of whom identifies as LGBT), as well as at least one person with experience in human resources or employment law.

Anyone claiming a violation of the ordinance must present that claim in writing to the Fayetteville City Attorney within 90 days of the alleged violation. The City Attorney must then forward the complaint to the Commission.

Resolution of any complaint will begin with informal and confidential mediation between the parties. If such attempts are unsuccessful, the claim will ultimately go to an evidentiary hearing before the Commission. Anyone found to have violated the Ordinance will be fined up to $100 for the first offense, with subsequent violations carrying the City’s general penalty of fines up to $500 and up to 30 days in jail if fines are not paid. However, there is no criminal classification or penalty associated with the Ordinance or its violation.

Opposition

The Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, though a leading opponent of the measure repealed in 2014, is in full support of this one. The story may not end there, however.

Opponents of the law filed suit in August 2015, seeking to stop the Special Election and arguing that the measure infringes upon individuals’ and business owners’ freedom of religion, that sexual predators might use the law to prey upon women and children in public restrooms, and that the ballot had a misleading title that did not include any details about LGBT protections, among other things. Injunctive relief was denied, but the lawsuit is pending in Washington County Circuit Court. Further, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge released an opinion on September 1, 2015, stating that Ordinance 5781, as well as any similar measure passed by other municipalities, conflicts with Arkansas state law, and therefore, should not survive legal challenge. She relies upon the state’s recently enacted Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act, which bans cities and counties from enacting or enforcing “an ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.”

On the other hand, Fayetteville City Attorney Kit Williams has stated that he will defend the Ordinance. He said the Ordinance incorporates several existing state laws, including the Arkansas Anti-Bullying Act and the Fair Housing Act, which, by their very terms, provide LGBT protections. “The protected classifications are certainly there in state law, and, therefore, this is not a new protected classification,” said Williams. He also has questioned whether the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act is constitutional under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The new Ordinance is a part of a growing national trend to prevent employers, at the local level, from firing or declining to hire any person because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Similar measures have been enacted by Pulaski County and five other cities in Arkansas: Little Rock, North Little Rock, Hot Springs, Eureka Springs, and Conway.

Article By James R. Mulroy, II & Jennifer C. Kellett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Uncertainty Follows Judicial Decision Enjoining DOL’s Same Sex Spouse Rule Change

Dinsmore Shohl LLP

Following Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s decision to sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a decision by Texas District Court Judge Reed O’Connor adds to the controversy and conversation surrounding the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights movement.

Opponents to the Indiana law say it will allow businesses to deny services to customers based on customers’ sexual orientation or gender identity and justify this denial based on religious beliefs. A day after Governor Pence signed Indiana’s RFRA into law, on March 27, 2015, the Arkansas legislature voted to enact its own religious freedom legislation known as the “Conscience Protection Act”, and the bill is currently before Governor Asa Hutchinson.

While the Arkansas Governor is set to consider religious freedoms and LGBT discrimination, Arkansas’s Attorney General has been battling the Department of Labor (DOL) in another issue impacting LGBT employees. On March 26, 2015, in Texas v. United States, N.D. Texas No. 7:15-cv-00056-O, Judge O’Connor granted an injunction to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska to temporarily halt the DOL’s Final Rule revising the definition of “spouse” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The DOL’s Final Rule took effect on March 27, 2015 and changed the definition of “spouse” to include individuals in same-sex marriages if the marriage was valid in the place it was entered into regardless of where they live. The Final Rule reads as follows:

Spouse, as defined in the statute, means a husband or wife. For purposes of this definition, husband or wife refers to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the State in which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State. This definition includes an individual in a same-sex or common law marriage that either:

(1) Was entered into in a State that recognizes such marriages; or

(2) If entered into outside of any State, is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State.

29 C.F.R. § 825.102. This change enables eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages to take FMLA leave to care for a spouse with a serious medical condition. The Final Rule no longer looks to the laws of the state in which the employee resides but rather relies on the laws of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into–i.e. the place of celebration.

Texas law, similar to Ohio, does not recognize same sex marriage. Texas, joined by Arkansas, Nebraska, and Louisiana, argued that the DOL exceeded its jurisdiction by requiring them to violate the Full Faith and Credit Statute and/or state law prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Texas argued that the Final Rule would require it to violate state law which prohibits it from giving any legal benefits asserted on the basis of a same-sex marriage. Judge O’Connor also relied on Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to hold that Congress intended to preserve a state’s ability to define marriage differently than another state or jurisdiction. Finding that the Final Rule would require Texas agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages in violation of state law, Judge O’Connor temporarily halted the application of the Final Rule pending a full determination of this matter on the merits.

In these four states, Judge O’Connor’s decision prevents employees in same-sex marriages from receiving the benefits afforded heterosexual married couples until the issue is resolved through legal channels. However, employers are not prohibited from granting family leave benefits to qualifying employees to care for a loved one. Despite the decision—only applicable in four states—the Final Rule is currently in effect. For this reason, employers should proceed in accordance with the DOL’s regulation and fulfill its obligations to its LGBT employees by revising their family and medical leave policies and providing FMLA benefits to employees in legal same-sex marriages.

ARTICLE BY

Anjali Chavan
Sadhna G. True
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Utah Passes Law Prohibiting LGBT Employment Discrimination

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP law firm

On March 12, Utah Governor Herbert signed into law S.B. 296, which amends the Utah Antidiscrimination Act to prohibit discrimination in employment by Utah employers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Notably, and perhaps not surprisingly given that 60% of Utah residents identify as Mormons, although the law had the support of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it exempts from coverage religious institutions, organizations, and affiliates (as well as the Boy Scouts of America) from its definition of employer.

It also allows for employee expression of religious or moral beliefs in the workplace – which would appear to include opposition to LGBT issues or lifestyles – as long as such expression is “reasonable, non-disruptive and non-harassing.” In passing this law, Utah becomes the 18th state (including the District of Columbia) to adopt LGBT anti-discrimination legislation. (LGBT discrimination is also prohibited against federal employees pursuant to Executive Order 13672, signed by President Obama in June 2014.)

ARTICLE BY

Daniel B. Pasternak
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP