Civil Rights Law: Sexual Orientation Inclusivity?

On June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled that civil rights laws do, in fact, apply to sexual orientation. The ruling, issued in Bostock v. Clayton County, stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, also includes employment discrimination against an individual based on their sexual orientation or transgender status. This decision was the result of multiple cases, including Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, which involved LGBTQ+ individuals being fired due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Supreme Court's ruling has far-reaching implications for LGBTQ+ rights, providing a critical tool to address the widespread discrimination faced by the community in various aspects of life, including employment, education, healthcare, and housing.

The Supreme Court's Bostock v. Clayton County ruling

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The ruling was the culmination of a decades-long effort by proponents of LGBTQ+ rights and was hailed as one of the most important legal decisions for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States.

The case centred on Gerald Bostock, a child welfare services coordinator, who was fired from his job after his employer discovered he had joined a gay softball league. Bostock's case was consolidated with two similar cases: Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who was fired for being gay, and Aimee Stephens, a funeral director who was fired after her employer learned she was transitioning from male to female.

The Supreme Court ruled that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of discrimination "because of sex", and is therefore unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that Title VII makes it unlawful for a covered employer to take an employee's sexual orientation or transgender status into account when making employment-related decisions.

The ruling had far-reaching implications, as it effectively extended workplace protections to millions of LGBTQ+ people across the nation. Prior to the ruling, it was legal in more than half of the states to fire workers for being LGBTQ+, and only 21 states had included LGBTQ+ as a protected class in their laws against employment discrimination. The Supreme Court's decision also impacted other areas of law, as courts applied the same reasoning to hold that federal laws barring sex discrimination in other settings, such as education and healthcare, also protect against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

The Bostock v. Clayton County ruling was a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights and helped to secure critical protections for LGBTQ+ Americans across the country. The ruling affirmed that LGBTQ+ individuals should be able to work without fear of discrimination and established clear federal protections against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Workplace discrimination

The Supreme Court's ruling came about as a result of the Bostock v. Clayton County case, which involved a trio of cases alleging discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers. The Court held that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status is discrimination "because of sex", and is therefore unlawful under Title VII.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency that handles workplace discrimination complaints. If an individual believes they have been subjected to adverse employment action, a hostile work environment, or other discrimination based on their LGBTQ+ status, they can file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC will then investigate the charge under anti-discrimination laws and notify the individual of its conclusion. The individual can then file a lawsuit in federal court if they wish to pursue legal action further.

It is important to note that Title VII protections apply to job applicants, current employees (including full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees), and former employees, as long as their employer has 15 or more employees. Title VII also applies to private-sector employers with 15 or more employees, state and local government employers with 15 or more employees, and the federal government as an employer.

Additionally, almost half of the US states, including the District of Columbia, have active human rights laws that prohibit LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Public-facing positions

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling, stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination. This ruling has significant implications for LGBTQ+ individuals in public-facing positions, who are now protected by federal law from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, affirmed that federal employment protections cover LGBTQ+ employees. The Court held that "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII," as this constitutes discrimination "because of sex," which is prohibited by Title VII.

The Court's ruling has direct implications for LGBTQ+ individuals in public-facing positions. One of the cases that led to the ruling, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, involved a skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, who was fired after disclosing his sexual orientation to a client. The Court's decision makes it clear that employers cannot discriminate against LGBTQ+ employees by keeping them out of public-facing positions or directing them towards certain stores or geographic areas based on customer or client preferences.

The ruling also has broader implications for LGBTQ+ rights. Justice Samuel Alito's dissent in Bostock notes that the Court's broad holding could advance LGBTQ+ equality under civil rights statutes that prohibit sex discrimination, such as Title IX, the Affordable Care Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

While the Supreme Court's decision is a significant step forward in protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination, it is important to note that it does not address various religious liberty issues, and there is still work to be done to ensure full equality for LGBTQ+ people.

Access to bathrooms

In the United States, the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ people is ever-evolving. While there is no federal law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in public accommodations, such as restaurants and theatres, state and local laws may ban this kind of discrimination.

In the United States, the right of transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity is a highly contested issue. This issue has resulted in the introduction of so-called "bathroom bills" in several states, which seek to deny transgender people access to bathrooms that align with their gender identity. Critics of these bills argue that they endanger transgender people without making cisgender people any safer, while proponents argue that such bills are necessary to maintain privacy and prevent voyeurism, assault, and rape.

The Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, also known as House Bill 2 (HB2), passed in North Carolina in 2016, is an example of a "bathroom bill." HB2 stated that individuals in government buildings could only use restrooms and changing facilities that correspond to the sex identified on their birth certificates. While portions of the measure were later repealed, it sparked widespread protests and a boycott of the state.

In contrast, some states and cities, such as Colorado, Iowa, Oregon, San Francisco, and New York City, have enacted laws or issued guidance specifically granting transgender people the right to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

At the federal level, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that employers may not deny an employee equal access to a bathroom, locker room, or shower that corresponds to their gender identity. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2020 case Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status.

While the legal landscape is constantly evolving, it is clear that the issue of bathroom access for transgender individuals remains a highly contested topic in the United States, with varying laws and opinions across different states and cities.

Harassment

In the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex. In a landmark ruling in 2020, the Supreme Court clarified that this includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This means that civil rights laws do apply to sexual orientation.

While the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, the accidental misuse of a transgender employee's name and pronouns does not violate Title VII. However, the repeated and intentional misuse of a transgender employee's name and pronouns could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.

If an employee reports harassment by a customer or client, the employer must take steps to stop the harassment and prevent it from happening again.

Frequently asked questions