SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION IN OHIO
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding gay marriage, there is no doubt the legal landscape for the LGBT community is changing. A question being asked more and more is whether or not sexual orientation is a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby prohibiting employers from discriminating against an employee because of his or her sexual orientation. Our Ohio Employment Lawyers receive calls and questions on this issue all the time. If you have any questions or would like to speak to us about this, please contact us https://www.thefriedmannfirm.com/contact-us/.
History of Title VII, Discrimination Based on “Sex” and Transgendered Individuals
In the 1970’s and 1980’s, courts had a pretty narrow view of Title VII. For example, in 1979, the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that discrimination against a homosexual was sex discrimination under Title VII. The Fifth Circuit came to a similar conclusion when it held that termination because of homosexuality was not protected by Title VII. As time moved forward, courts began taking a closer look at Title VII and began interpreting “sex” more broadly.
In 1984, the Seventh Circuit heard a case involving a transgender plaintiff, Ulane v. Eastern Airlines. Kenneth Ulane was hired by Eastern Airlines as a pilot and eventually took leave to have gender reassignment surgery. When Kenneth returned to work as Karen, she was terminated. The Court found that Karen was not discriminated against because she was female and rejected her Title VII claim, holding that Title VII does not protect transgendered individuals.
Courts, such as the Sixth Circuit that emcompasses Ohio, continued to hold that homosexuals were not protected by Title VII. For example, an employee sued his employer, the United States Postal Service, after he was teased and physically assaulted because his co-workers thought he was gay. The Court said too bad- although these comments are cruel, they are not unlawful.
Expansion of the Definition of “Sex” as it Relates to Title VII
A few years later, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “sex” when it decidedPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Hopkins was a female manager who was denied a partnership interest because she exhibited masculine traits. Price Waterhouse informed her that she could only increase her changes for a partnership interest by walking and talking more femininely, wearing makeup and taking a course at charm school, among others. The Court held that Hopkins was discriminated against because of sex and the theory of “sex or gender stereotyping” emerged. The Court said, “an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.” Price Waterhouse was the first case to define the word “sex” as both biological sex and gender, which includes “socially acceptable” roles and behaviors that define a woman as a woman and a man as a man. If the employer takes any of these roles and behaviors into consideration, they have taken gender into account.
Gender Stereotyping Theory Emerges
After the Price Waterhouse decision, other courts began to recognize the gender stereotyping theory as it relates to discrimination claims under Title VII. For example, the Ninth Circuit found that the unrelenting barrage of same sex verbal abuse by male co-workers against the plaintiff constituted sex discrimination under Title VII. The Seventh Circuit came to a similar holding in Doe v. Belleville, where the plaintiff endured harassment from male co-workers based on his gender.
Next, the Supreme Court decided Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. The plaintiff, Joseph Oncale, was subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions and comments from his make co-workers in the presence of the rest of the crew. The actions included physical assaults in a sexual manner and even a threat of rape. Oncale filed a claim of sex discrimination against his employer after he complained and felt the situation was not dealt with appropriately. The Court held that Title VII also protects same-sex harassment between heretosexual men.
Protection Extended to Transgendered Plaintiffs
in 2004, the Sixth Circuit, in a case from Ohio, was the first federal court to apply the gender stereotyping theory to transgendered plaintiffs in Smith v. City of Salem. Plaintiff Smith worked for the City of Salem Fire Department. When he began exhibiting a more feminine appearance, he spoke with his supervisor about his gender identity disorder. The supervisor promised he’d keep the conversation confidential but he did not and the city began to hatch a plan to terminate his employment, based on his gender identity disorder. The Sixth Circuit held that Smith had a valid claim under Title VII “because of sex” as a result of his non-conforming gender behavior. Specifically, the Court said, “discrimination against a plaintiff who is a transsexual- and therefore fails to act and/or identify with his or her gender- is no different from the discrimination directed against Hopkins in Price Waterhouse who, in sex-stereotypical terms, did not act like a woman.”
Does This Protection Extend to Homosexuals?
The Sixth Circuit in Smith specially said no. It also said no in Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center, when the Court held Title VII does not extend to protect sexual orientation. This is where the analysis gets very murky because gender stereotyping cases usually involve ideas about how a man or woman should act and if he or she does not act that way, the discussion almost always turns to homosexuality and society’s views on gender behavior. The Court has commented that “gender stereotyping claims should not be used to bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII.” If the conduct directed toward the employee is based on his or her gender non-conformity, is it usually because that person is perceived as or is homosexual, bisexual or transgender so an argument can and should be made that Title VII protects homosexuals as well. The Court draws a tenuous line between homosexuality and gender non-confortmity when in the eyes of society, the two usually go hand in hand. If gender stereotyping is protected, homosexuality should be as well.
It looks like we are moving toward homosexuality being protected under Title VII because the EEOC issued a decision, Macy v. Holder, that is binding on all federal agencies that says, “discrimination based on gender identity, change of sex and/or transgender identity” is discrimination because of “sex” under Title VII. The EEOC is now also accepting Charges of Discrimination for sex discrimination claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals.
There have been some courts recently that have actually recognized Title VII claims based on sexual orientation. (Find Terveer v. Billington here, from Gender Identity Watch- http://genderidentitywatch.com/2014/04/03/terveer-v-billington-usa/ and Hall v. BNSF Railway http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=13501).
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit initially dismissed the plaintiff’s Title VII claims for sex discrimination based on sexual orientation in Muhammad v. Caterpillar, Inc. (full text of opinion here- http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1723/12-1723-2014-09-09.html). However, the EEOC filed an amicus brief seeking rehearing on the issue. The Seventh Circuit panel denied the petition for rehearing but issued an amended opinion removing the original holding that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation discrimination.
Is homosexuality officially protected under Title VII? The answer right now in the Sixth Circuit is no. However, it appears other Courts and the EEOC are recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class under Title VII so hopefully it is only a matter of time before a decision such as this is issued by the Sixth Circut and is binding on Ohio federal courts.
If you have questions about this case or would like to discuss a situation similar to this with our Cleveland employment lawyers, please contact us today.
- Columbus FMLA lawyers
- Columbus hostile work environment attorney
- discrimination attorney Columbus Ohio
- Employment Contract Lawyers
- employment lawyers Columbus
- hostile work environment attorney Columbus Ohio
- Hostile Work Environment EEOC
- Intermittent Leave of Absence
- Intermittent Leave Under the FMLA
- lawyers that handle wrongful termination Columbus
- Ohio employment attorney
- Pregnancy discrimination lawyer
- Unpaid Overtime lawyer Columbus Ohio
- workplace discrimination lawyer Columbus
- wrongful termination attorneys Columbus Ohio
Rachel was absolutely amazing. As an attorney she really took the time to really listen to my concerns. She was honest and kept me informed every step of the way. The outcome was favorable on my behalf and I appreciate her efforts to achieve a good outcome. I would highly recommend her and the Friedmann firm to represent me if ever needed in future.
Working with Rachel Sabo from Friedmann Firm was absolutely amazing! She upholds integrity, honesty and without a doubt fights for what is right! Rachel was extremely transparent and real! Please don’t let wrong be right, Rachel will strive to advocate and put her whole heart in obtaining resolve in your situation! What an absolute blessing, she won my case in less than 1 week💪
My experience with the Friedmann Firm is an absolute 5 stars. From my very first call with Karen, to all of my communication with Rachel, everything exceeded all of my expectations. Rachel and Karen were so caring and understanding in a very sensitive situation. They responded immediately to any questions or concerns I had. I would HIGHLY recommend the Friedmann Firm. They are caring, professional, understanding, and I would trust them with any issue I have in the future.
Rachel and the Friedmann Firm were fantastic to work with. The thought of needing an employment lawyer was scary for me, it was confusing and complex. But Rachel listened, asked questions and took time to really understand me and my priorities. I felt calm, supported and excited for the first time in weeks after talking to her!! We worked together to review everything, set expectations and meet my priorities! Thanks Rachel and team for all your work!!!
Rachel Friedmann of the Friedman Firm was my attorney for a very recent legal matter. I would highly recommend Rachel based on her legal knowledge, her honest appraisal of the matter and expected outcomes, her open communication and timely responses to my questions and the matter itself, and her steadfastness in dealing with the opposing counsel until a final agreement was reached.
Rachel and her staff went over and above the call of duty to help me achieve fiscal resolution to my legal issue. She wasn’t always available to talk but was always responsive via text and email when in court out of the office and even on vacation. I feel she earned her percentage cut.
Couldn’t be happier with the representation I received from Jamie Bailey on my civil litigation case. She worked tirelessly to resolve the case and in the end negotiated a fair settlement on my behalf. I would highly recommend her to anyone! Thanks for everything Friedman law firm.
Friedman Firm was a great help in a difficult time in my life. They went above and beyond to get me back on track. Rachel was so good to work with and is extremely knowledgeable about the law and employment rights. Can't thank them enough for all there hard work. Highly recommend them to anyone.
The Friedmann Firm (specifically Pete Friedmann) represented me through what seemed like a never ending employment discrimination suit. The suit was filed just before Covid shut everything down in 2020. Add to that a former employer who refused to admit fault. In spite of all of that, Pete stood resolute in his representation of me and working for the best outcome for me. We ended up settling prior to trial and I was more than satisfied with the results. Pete was always available to answer questions and reassure me throughout this process. I highly recommend The Friedmann Firm!
Pete Friedmann and his firm are fantastic. He represented me for more than a year going through a suit with a previous employer. He walked me through every step of the process and was always quick to respond to any questions I had. My settlement came in and we parted ways with both sides being pleased with the outcome. I highly recommend the Friedmann firm and wouldn’t hesitate to use them again in the future if the need arose. Thank you, Pete!
Rachel and the Friedmann Firm have been amazing to work with. Rachel was very helpful, listened to our concerns and took our case. She communicated well throughout and really worked for us. We were very well represented!
I loved working with The Friedmann Firm. Rachel and Jamie are exceptional lawyers and were diligent in reviewing my case and letting me know of my options. Jamie was extremely thorough and handled even the smallest details of my case with ease. The entire process was seamless and they were always quick to respond to emails and calls. I would definitely recommend working with The Friedmann Firm.
I would recommend Rachel Sabo Friedmann and the Friedmann firm for severance negotiations. Rachel was always available and responsive and made an effort to ensure I was updated on every step of the process. Her diligent efforts produced a prompt resolution and we are very happy with the results!