Abstract
The Supreme Court heard arguments during its 2019–2020 term in three cases concerning the employment rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees: Zarda v. Altitude Express (2018), Bostock v. Clayton County (2018b), and EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. (2018). In these cases the lower courts considered whether or not Title VII includes protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The cases reached the Supreme Court after a split in the circuit court decisions and under a backdrop of differing, and at times conflicting, state and local laws as well as divergent positions taken by federal agencies. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ultimately held that Title VII covers both sexual orientation and gender identity. This paper submits that the legal questions before the Court rested upon the evolution in the legal interpretation of Title VII as well as the changing social standards as applied to LGBT employees in large part due to the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). While the current environment of LGBT rights represents a time of great transition, the Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity to legal and human resource professionals regarding how they should treat LGBT employees and applicants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
N/A
References
Baldwin v. Foxx, EEOC Appeal. No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641 (July 15, 2015).
Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005).
Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1979).
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App’x 964 (11th Cir. 2018a).
Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 894 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2018b).
Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 1:16-CV-1460-ODE, 2017 WL 4456898 (N.D. Ga. July 20, 2017).
Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 1:16-CV-001460-ODE-WEJ, 2016 WL 9753356 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2016).
Butler Snow. (2019). Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirms that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-92868/.
Cain, A. (2017). Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn’t protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-doj-lgbt-employment-discrimination-civil-rights-act-2017-7.
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pub. L. 88–352, Stat. 241, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), 2000e-2(a)(1) (2018).
Civil Rights Act of 1991. Pub. L. 102–166, 105 Stat. 1071, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2m (2018).
Conron, K. J., & Goldberg, S. K. (2020). LGBT people in the United States not protected by state nondiscrimination statutes. The Williams Institute, Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Law. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-nondiscrimination-statutes/.
DOJ. (2010). The civil rights division and LGBT rights. U.S. Dep’t of Justice Archives. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/civil-rights-division-and-lgbt-rights.
EEOC. (2015). Lakeland Eye Clinic will pay $150,000 to resolve transgender /sex discrimination lawsuit. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-13-15.cfm.
EEOC v. R.G. & G. R Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018).
EEOC v. Scott Med. Health Center, 217 F. Supp. 3d 834 (W.D. Pa. 2016).
Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017).
Franklin, C. (2012). Inventing the" traditional concept" of sex discrimination. Harvard Law Review, 125, 1307–1380.
Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017).
Human Rights Campaign. (2019). Human Rights Campaign. www.hrc.org/state-maps/employment.
Leonard, A.S. (2018). Two new job discrimination petitions to SCOTUS. New York Law School Other Publications, 359. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1364&=&context=fac_other_pubs.
Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978).
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
Macy v. Holder, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995 (April 20, 2012).
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018).
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
Miller, S. (2016). Employee benefits after the supreme court decision upholding same sex marriage. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/same-sex-couples-benefits.aspx.
Nagele-Piazza, L. (2019a). Creating LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/creating-lgbtq-inclusive-workplace-policies.aspx.
Nagele-Piazza, L. (2019b). Are Federal LGBT protections coming to the workplace? Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/supreme-court-congress-consider-federal-lgbt-protections.aspx.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020).
Pena, K. (2018). LGBT discrimination in the workplace: What will the future hold? Florida Bar Journal, 92(1), 35–36 https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/lgbt-discrimination-in-the-workplace-what-will-the-future-hold/.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971).
Pizer, J., Mallory, C., Sears, B., & Hunter, N. (2012). Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against LGBT people: The need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 45(3), 2–67.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
Scalia, A. (1997). Common-law courts in a civil-law system: The role of United States federal courts in interpreting the constitution and laws. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 18, 77–122.
Sears, B., & Mallory, C. (2014). Employment discrimination against LGBT people: Existence and impact. In C. M. Duffy (Ed.), Gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace (pp. 40-1-40-19), Arlington, VA: Bureau of National Affairs. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9qs0n354.
Senegal v. Yum! Brands, Inc., H-18-1734, 2019 WL 448943 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2019).
Sherrell, D. (2019). A fresh look: Title VII’s new promise for LGBT discrimination protection post-Hively. Emory Law Journal, 68(6), 1101–1144.
Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000).
Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004).
Smith, A. (2019). Dhillon will be new EEOC chair despite concerns on LGBT rights. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/janet-dhillon-confirmed-as-eeoc-chair.aspx.
Smith, J. M. (1994). Sexual orientation: Training can help to promote tolerance. HR Focus, 71(1), 12–13.
Smith, A., & Nagele-Piazza, L. (2019). Supreme court to decide if civil rights act prohibits LGBT discrimination. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/high-court-takes-up-lgbt-title-vii-decisions.aspx.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013).
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013).
Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Co., 915 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2019).
Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.2018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
None.
Human Participants and/or Animals
This research did not involve human participants or animals.
Informed Consent
Not required for secondary research.
Code Availability
N/A
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valenti, A. LGBT Employment Rights in an Evolving Legal Landscape: the Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Employ Respons Rights J 33, 3–23 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-020-09359-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-020-09359-7