By Nila Merola and Cameron A. Smith

Seyfarth Synopsis: Both houses of the New York State Legislature passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression and adds offenses motivated by gender identity or expression to the hate crimes statute.

On January 15, 2019, both the New York State Senate and Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (“GENDA” or the “Act”). Governor Cuomo is expected to sign the Act into law. GENDA’s effective date will be thirty days after Governor Cuomo signs the Act into law (except for the provisions amending the Penal Law and Criminal Procedure Law, which will not be effective until November 1, 2019).

GENDA adds Subdivision 35 to Section 292 to the Executive Law, which defines “gender identity or expression” to mean “a person’s actual or perceived identity, appearance, behavior, expression or other gender-related characteristic regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth, including, but not limited to, the status of being transgender.” The Act also amends the State Executive Law, Civil Rights Law, and Education Law to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education, and public accommodations, among others, based on gender identity or expression. GENDA also amends the State penal law and criminal procedure law to include certain offenses regarding gender identity or expression within the list of offenses subject to treatment as hate crimes.

Since 2008, GENDA has passed the Assembly 10 times, but has consistently failed in the Senate. In 2016, the New York State Division of Human Rights adopted new regulations that ban discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender identity, gender dysphoria, and transgender status, but GENDA now writes those regulations into law. With GENDA’s passage, New York State joins at least nineteen other states, the District of Columbia, and 157 cities and counties in the United States, including New York City, that have already passed gender-inclusive legislation.

This is a good time for all employers to review their existing anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies to ensure that they comply with both the New York City Human Rights Law and GENDA. Employers should also ensure that they incorporate gender identity, gender expression, and the status of being transgender into their anti-harassment and anti-discrimination trainings, and clarify that discrimination or harassment on those bases is unlawful.

The attorneys at Seyfarth Shaw LLP are available to provide any assistance with ensuring that you have robust anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies in place. We can also provide interactive anti-harassment training tailored to your company’s specific business and needs.

By Scott Rabe and Marlin Duro

Seyfarth Synopsis: In its recent decision in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., No. 16-2424, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit has sent the strong message that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has minimal impact on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) authority to enforce the anti-discrimination laws under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

The RFRA, enacted in 1993, prohibits the government from enforcing a law that is religiously neutral against an individual, if the natural law “substantially burdens” the individual’s religious exercise and is not the least restrictive way to further a compelling government interest. Importantly, the RFRA applies only in the context of government action, and therefore would not provide a defense for an employer in a civil suit brought by a private plaintiff.

In EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., a Sixth Circuit panel held in a unanimous decision that: (i) Title VII’s proscription of discrimination on the basis of sex encompasses a prohibition on discrimination based on transgender status, and that (ii) in this case the RFRA would not limit the EEOC’s authority to enforce anti-discrimination laws under Title VII. With this decision, the Sixth Circuit became the first federal Court of Appeals to address the extent to which the RFRA may limit the EEOC’s power to enforce Title VII.

By way of background, the EEOC brought suit against a funeral home on behalf of a transgender employee, Aimee Stephens, who was terminated from her employment shortly after informing her employer that she intended to transition from male to female. The EEOC alleged the funeral home violated Title VII by terminating Stephens’ employment on the basis of her transgender or transitioning status and her refusal to conform to sex-based stereotypes. The funeral home argued that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of transgender status and that the funeral home was protected from enforcement of Title VII by the RFRA as the government action would constitute an unjustified substantial burden upon the funeral home owner’s exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Both parties moved for summary judgment and the district court found in favor of the funeral home on both motions The district court found that Title VII did not protect against discrimination based on transgender status and that, while Stephens had suffered discrimination based on sex stereotyping, the RFRA prevented the EEOC from suing on her behalf.

On the EEOC’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court with respect to both motions and granted summary judgment in favor of the EEOC. First, the Sixth Circuit held that the funeral home’s conduct violated Title VII, reinforcing its prior holdings that discrimination against employees because of their gender identity and transgender status are illegal under Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination based on sex stereotyping. The Sixth Circuit explained that “discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex” and found that firing a person because he or she will no longer represent him or herself as the gender that he or she was born with “falls squarely within the ambit of sex-based discrimination” forbidden under Title VII. Id. at *18.

Second, the Sixth Circuit held that the EEOC’s enforcement of Title VII against the funeral home did not violate the funeral home’s rights under the RFRA. A viable defense based on the RFRA requires a demonstration that the government action at issue would substantially burden a sincerely held religious exercise. Although the Sixth Circuit treated the running of the funeral home as a sincere religious exercise by the owner, it held that the alleged burden caused by the enforcement of Title VII was not “substantial” within the meaning of RFRA. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that tolerating an employee’s understanding of his or her sex and gender identity was not “tantamount to supporting it” and that mere compliance with Title VII, “without actually assisting or facilitating transition efforts,” did not amount to an endorsement by the employer of the employee’s views. Id. at *59, *61. Nor, the Sixth Circuit explained, could the funeral home rely on customers’ “presumed biases” against transgender individuals to meet the substantial burden test. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit held that the funeral home had not demonstrated a substantial burden on the its religious exercise.

While the Sixth Circuit could have ended its analysis there, it went on to hold that even if tolerating Stephens’ gender identity and transitioning status were a “substantial burden” on the funeral home’s religious exercise, the EEOC did not violate the RFRA because the agency had a compelling interest in eradicating all forms of invidious employment discrimination, and enforcement of Title VII through its enforcement function was the least restrictive means for eradicating discrimination in the workforce. This analysis, if found not to apply only to the facts of this case, could ostensibly doom any defense to a Title VII action within the Sixth Circuit where an employer raises a defense based on the RFRA.

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion is an important one, as it addresses two of the more hot button topics in employment jurisprudence: the scope of the definition of “sex discrimination” under Title VII and the impact of laws protecting the free exercise of religion in the workplace. On the former, this opinion joins the recent trend in decisions finding that gender identity is inextricably linked with sex and therefore is protected under Title VII. And on the latter, the Sixth Circuit has laid down a gauntlet as the first federal circuit addressing the RFRA’s impact on the EEOC’s Title VII enforcement power. The decision is clearly intended to send a strong message that the RFRA has limited application, if any, in defense of a Title VII action brought by the Commission. While time will tell whether other federal circuits will adopt a similar interpretation, if the Sixth Circuit’s legal rationale is followed, employers will be hard-pressed to defend Title VII claims brought by the EEOC based on the alleged exercise of religious freedom.

In light of the current uncertainty regarding the ultimate interpretation of Title VII as it applies to gender identity, employers should regularly review their policies to ensure that adequate protections are provided to employees on the basis of their gender identity, and transgender and transitioning status. As always, we also invite employers to reach out to their Seyfarth contact for solutions and recommendations regarding anti-harassment and EEO policies and addressing compliance with LGBTQ+ issues in the law.

For more information on this topic, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth Attorney, or any member of Seyfarth Shaw’s Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team or the Labor & Employment Team.

By Scott Rabe and Sam Schwartz-Fenwick

Seyfarth Synopsis: In landmark decision, the Second Circuit joins the Seventh Circuit in holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a subset of sex discrimination.

In a landmark decision today in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., No. 15-3775, the Second Circuit ruled en banc that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a subset of discrimination on the basis of sex. The Second Circuit now joins the Seventh Circuit, the EEOC, and a number of district and administrative courts across the country that have interpreted Title VII to extend its prohibition of sex discrimination to sexual orientation.  Chief Judge Katzmann authored the decision for the plurality, in which four judges joined in full, five judges joined in part, and to which three judges dissented.  In total, eight of the thirteen judges issued an opinion.

The Appellant in Zarda, a former skydiving instructor, sued his employer, alleging that he was terminated from his job after he revealed to a customer that he was gay.  Specifically, he alleged sex discrimination under Title VII asserting that his employment was terminated because he failed to conform to male sex stereotypes because he was gay.  The district court dismissed Zarda’s Title VII claim at summary judgment, holding that, although there was sufficient evidence to permit his claim for sexual orientation discrimination to proceed under New York law, which explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of gender stereotyping under Title VII based on his sexual orientation.  The district court explained that in reaching this decision it was constrained by Second Circuit precedent in Simonton v. Runyon and Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, which held that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Today the Second Circuit reversed, and in doing so, explicitly stated that it was overturning its prior opinions in Simonton and Dawson.

In the plurality opinion, Judge Katzmann explained that sexual orientation discrimination should be treated as a subset of sex discrimination for several reasons.  He observed that “sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted,” that “sexual orientation discrimination is . . . based on assumptions or stereotypes about how members of a particular gender should be, including to whom they should be attracted,” and that “sexual orientation discrimination is associational discrimination because an adverse employment action that is motivated by the employer’s opposition to association between members of particular sexes discriminates against an employee on the basis of sex.”   The plurality also found compelling that, while the consensus among Circuits and the EEOC in 2000 at the time of Simonton was that Title VII did not protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the EEOC and the Seventh Circuit both changed their stance on this issue and courts across the country continue to explore this issue.

The main dissent, written by Judge Lynch and joined in part by two justices, argued primarily that under a strict textual interpretation of Title VII, the statute did not protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as it is clear Congress could have but did not include sexual orientation as a protected class.  This is the same rationale employed in 2017 by the Eleventh Circuit in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, which recently held in a divided opinion that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Today’s decision widens the Circuit split on this issue.  Further, the diverse array of opinions among the judges on the Second Circuit mirrors the nationwide divergence in views regarding the protections that Title VII affords employees based on their sexual orientation.  While the EEOC has now taken the clear position that discrimination against workers because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual is sex discrimination under Title VII, the Department of Justice has issued guidance and sought to enforce an interpretation of Title VII that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not prohibited under Title VII as sex discrimination.  Circuit, district, and administrative courts are also split.  With the Circuit divide, complicated by vastly divergent interpretations of Title VII by the very agencies entrusted to enforce Title VII, the issue is poised for a Supreme Court ruling.

In light of the current uncertainty regarding the ultimate interpretation of Title VII as it applies to sexual orientation, as well as gender identity, see our prior post, and because numerous state and local laws already explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, employers should regularly review their policies to ensure that adequate protections are provided to employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

For more information on this topic, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth Attorney, or any member of Seyfarth Shaw’s Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team or the Labor & Employment Team.

By Scott Rabe, Sam Schwartz-Fenwick, and Marlin Duro

Seyfarth Synopsis: In the first case following the Department of Justice’s pronouncement that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons on the basis of gender identity, a court in the Western District of Oklahoma held that Title VII protects transgender individuals from discrimination. Tudor v. Se. Okla. State Univ., No. civ-15-324-C. (W.D. Okla. Oct. 26, 2017).

With the recent October 5, 2017 memorandum from the Department of Justice stating that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons, the legal landscape regarding Title VII’s protection of transgender individuals is very much in flux. The DOJ’s interpretation is a reversal of the DOJ’s interpretation under the Obama administration and also conflicts with the current interpretation of the EEOC, both of which interpret Title VII to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. U.S. Circuit courts are also split on the issue, meaning this issue is likely primed for resolution by the Supreme Court in the not too distant future.

The latest decision addressing this issue comes from Tudor v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University, a case from the Western District of Oklahoma in which Tudor, a transgender former professor at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, alleged among other things that she was harassed and discriminated against on the basis of her gender identity after she was denied tenure following her transition from male to female. The court in Tudor denied the university’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there were triable issues of fact with respect to each of Tudor’s claims. This decision is important because it shows that, despite the DOJ’s memorandum, courts are still willing to extend Title VII protections to transgender persons. It also provides helpful guidance to employers as they ponder how their own internal policies and procedures affect transgender employees.

Importantly, the court in Tudor rejected the University’s argument that Tudor was not entitled to protection under Title VII because “transgender” is not a protected class. The court, relying on its prior ruling on the issue, reiterated that Title VII’s prohibition of gender discrimination extended to transgender individuals to the extent they were discriminated against based on “gender non-conformity.” Specifically, Tudor had alleged that Defendant’s actions towards her occurred because she was female, yet Defendants regarded her as male.

The Court also denied the University’s motion for summary judgment on Tudor’s hostile work environment claim, finding that there was a triable issue of fact. In particular, the court highlighted Tudor’s evidence that for four years the University placed restrictions on what restroom she could use, how she could dress, what makeup she could wear, and that it used the wrong pronouns when referencing her. The Court found that these facts, if true, could be sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim.

The Court also rejected the University’s Faragher/Ellerth defense, which can provide a complete defense to an employer that has non-discrimination and non-harassment policies in place but where an employee fails to take advantage of those procedures. Here, the court explained that the defense would not apply because the University’s sexual harassment and sex discrimination policies did not contain specific language regarding protections for transgender employees.

Even though the law in this area remains uncertain, there is much for employers to glean from the Tudor case. First, it is clear that the DOJ’s recent memorandum has not resolved the question of whether Title VII protects transgender employers on the basis of gender identity. Therefore, employers should be vigilant in establishing and maintaining non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies that extend protections to individuals on the basis of gender identity. This will help ensure that employers stay compliant with federal (and applicable state and local) laws, and it also preserves a potential Faragher/Ellerth defense to a hostile work environment claim. Employers should also be mindful of the unique conduct that may be considered harassing in nature to transgender employees. For example, Tudor demonstrates that denying employees access to their bathroom of choice, enacting strict gender normative dress codes, and refusing to use preferred pronouns may all contribute to a hostile work environment. Thus, employers should update their anti-harassment policies and trainings to include examples that address some of the unique scenarios affecting transgender employees.

As always, we invite employers to reach out to their Seyfarth contact for solutions and recommendations regarding anti-harassment and EEO policies and addressing compliance with LGBT issues in the law.

By Sam Schwartz-FenwickMichael W. Stevens, and Kylie Byron

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Department of Justice has reversed the previous Administration’s position on employment protections for transgender individuals, and issued a memorandum that will likely be relied on by private employers seeking to use their religious faith to engage in otherwise prohibited discriminatory conduct.

In a bombshell week, with significant implications for employers, the Department of Justice issued two memos setting forth its views on transgender discrimination claims and an employer’s ability to make decisions based on its religious beliefs.

On October 5th, 2017, the Department of Justice released a memorandum stating that the new position of the DOJ would be that Title VII does not protect transgender persons from discrimination in the workplace. However, somewhat confusingly, the memo specified that transgender people were still protected under Title VII’s existing formulation. This presumably means that a transgender person may sue under Title VII if their employer discriminates against them on the basis of their race or country of origin, but not on the basis of sex or gender identity. The DOJ had previously argued in Court that Title VII does not extend to claims of sexual orientation discrimination.

On October 6th, 2017, the Department issued new guidance providing that “[e]xcept in the narrowest of circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law.” The directive explicitly states that private companies must be given the same leeway regarding religious beliefs that churches receive. This guidance may impact hiring, and could possibly give any private organization the ability to hire, fire, and discipline employees based upon the faith of the owner or supervisor. It may also lead to changes in benefit plans that expressly exclude on religious grounds transgender coverage and/or same-sex spousal benefit.

These directives were not unexpected. Nonetheless, they mark a sharp reversal of DOJ policy. Under the Obama Administration, the DOJ had held the position that transgender employees were protected from discrimination under Title VII, congruent with the EEOC’s position. Specifically, the Department’s position was that gender identity discrimination was a form of sex stereotyping and thus covered by under Title VII. The DOJ intervened in litigation throughout the country advocating this view of the statute. Likewise, the prior administration argued in Hobby Lobby v Burwell, that private companies cannot claim exemption on religious grounds from generally applicable statutes.

In addition, the DOJ’s new course puts it at odds with the EEOC. The EEOC continues to advocate for a broad interpretation of Title VII that extends to claims of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.   Further it remains the EEOC’s position that a business cannot defend otherwise discriminatory conduct by arguing such conduct was consistent with its religious beliefs.

The memos underscore that this is an area of law filled with uncertainty. The law on the scope of Title VII’s coverage, and the ability of religion to act as an affirmative defense to otherwise discriminatory conduct, remain unsettled. The memos do not resolve the issue. The Department of Justice has stated its viewpoint and direction, but these directives do not supersede state or federal law already in place. Further, these memos do not control the position of the EEOC.

It is anticipated that these memos will lead to an increase in targeted employment lawsuits from impact groups. How such cases will turn out is unknown.

What is known is that these issues will remain in flux until either the Supreme Court hears the issue or Congress passes clarifying legislation. This term, the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop will be given the opportunity to provide some insight into how it views the tension between religious rights and principles of non-discrimination. The case involves whether or not a business (here a bakery) is permitted to refuse service to same-sex couples on the basis of the business-owner’s faith. The baker asserts a First Amendment rights to religious liberty and freedom of speech. A ruling in favor of the baker would be consistent with the DOJ’s October 6 memo, and could dramatically change the employment law landscape. As with the DOJ memo, such a ruling could be relied on by employers and plan sponsors to justify otherwise discriminatory actions in hiring, promotion, firing and plan design.

As the policy change by the DOJ is not binding, it is not advisable to shift employment policies based upon the Attorney General’s statements. Treating transgender employees with equality in the workplace is a best practice standard that increases employee safety and productivity and helps with recruitment, retention and morale. Further, inclusive policies mitigate against the risk of potential litigation. In addition, several states and cities have protective statutes that prohibit discrimination against transgender people in employment, and federal courts in multiple jurisdictions have found transgender claims covered by Title VII.

For more information on this topic, or for advice or assistance in helping your workplace comply with best practices for transgender employees, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth Attorney, or any member of Seyfarth Shaw’s Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.

By Sam Schwartz-Fenwick, Michael W. Stevens, and Kylie Byron

Seyfarth Synopsis: The first eight months of the new administration signals a retrenchment on the executive branch’s view of legal protections due LGBT individuals, including in employment.

Recently, in a dramatic shift, the Department of Justice broke ranks with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., No 15-3775, Dkt. #417 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2017).  In that brief, the Department argued that, contrary to its prior position (and that of the E.E.O.C.), discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not prohibited under Title VII as harassment on the basis of gender. The E.E.O.C.’s longstanding position is that such discrimination is prohibited, a position that recently found support in the Seventh Circuit in Hively v. Ivy Tech, No. 15-720 (7th Cir. Apr. 4, 2017) (en banc).

There is currently a circuit split on this issue, with the Seventh Circuit finding that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited by Title VII, and the Eleventh Circuit finding that it is not. The sudden reversal of the Department of Justice, injects further uncertainty in the already unsettled landscape of LGBT protections under Title VII.  Employers can expect this uncertainty to continue until the issue is addressed by either Congress or by the Supreme Court. Employers seeking to navigate this in flux legal landscape should work closely with counsel.

In another shift on LGBT issues, in March 2017, the Administration revoked Executive Order 13673, or the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Order.”  Order 13673 required federal government contractors and prospective contractors to show compliance with Order 13672, an order that barred federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity. By revoking Order 13673, the  Administration has limited the impact of Order 13672.  While the nondiscrimination Order remains in place, the Order that would hold contractors accountable has been revoked.  Revocation of Order 13673 has created uncertainty among federal contractors as to their responsibilities, and as to appropriate best practices. To remain compliant with Order 13672, employers should work closely with counsel.

In addition, the Administration has revoked the Department of Education issued guidance regarding transgender students. The DOE under the Obama administration stated that transgender students were protected under Title IX on the basis of gender identity.  Thus, schools that did not permit transgender students to use the necessary hygienic facilities (such as bathrooms) appropriate to their gender were in violation of Title IX’s nondiscrimination provisions and risked losing federal funds.

In February 2017, the Trump Administration rescinded that guidance finding it did not “contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX.” Absent legal mandates to the contrary, schools can continue to offer protections to their transgender students consistent with their beliefs as to what is in the best interest of students.  Schools that seek to limit bathroom access to the sex-at-birth assigned to their students will need to grapple with how they can enact and implement such a rule while still complying with the present DOE guidance which provides that LGBT students must be assured that they “are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment” and cannot be subjected to discrimination.

The Administration’s view that Title IX does not protect transgender individuals has also led it to consider making changes to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, Section, the regulations containing anti-discrimination protections in the provision of healthcare. Section 1557 bars covered entities from discriminating, including barring coverage based on a transgender exclusion in a plan. Last year, a court in the Northern District of Texas placed a nationwide preliminary injunction on enforcement of the transgender related Section 1557 regulations in a suit against HHS. The current administration chose not to appeal the decision. The Department of Justice further asked the court for a remand to HSS, so that HHS could determine whether or not the regulations comported with Title IX. The court granted this remand, and HHS is currently reportedly planning a new proposed rule for that purpose.

On August 4, 2017, the Justice Department announced that it was reviewing a draft proposed rule already prepared by HHS. It is likely that the proposed rule will unwind the transgender protections of Section 1557, in whole or provide exemptions to the regulations. Healthcare providers, employers, human resources departments and benefits administrators should work closely with counsel on this rapidly changing area of the law.

In further recent action, on July 26, 2017 President Trump tweeted that he would bar transgender persons from service in the military, and thus discharge all transgender service members. While a tweet does not appear to create legal policy, the tweet, and subsequent tweets on the subject, sent strong signals regarding his intention. On August 9, 2017, two lawsuits were filed alleging that although the ban has not yet been enacted, the policy announcement itself caused harm to service members. While this policy change does not directly impact private employers it underscores the need to keep abreast of change in the law that relate to gender-identity based protections, and to consult with counsel to evaluate internal policies, practices, and procedures with an eye toward gender identity claims.

Finally, in understanding the impact of the new administration on LGBT issues, it is instructive to examine the President’s judicial appointments, especially his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. While numerous publications, including ours, have been written on Justice Gorsuch’s outlook towards LGBT individuals, his dissent in Pavan v. Smith is instructive as to his leaning in future LGBT-related cases. In Pavan, the Court held that the same-sex parents of children in the state of Arkansas may not be prohibited from being listed as legal parents on their child’s birth certificate.  The Court held, per curiam, that because Arkansas already listed non-biological parents on birth certificates for non-same-sex couples, the state could not deny the same treatment to same-sex couples.

Justice Gorsuch, along with Justices Alito and Thomas, dissented in part arguing that “essentialist” biological or anatomical rationales should be the primary determining factor of parenthood, rather than adoption and other legal same-sex parenting methods. He further called into question the reach of Obergefell v. Hodges.  Judge Gorsuch’s views on LGBT issues will receive attention next year when the Court addresses whether a business can refuse to provide service to a gay couple.  This decision has wide ranging implications for employers and plan administrators, as it is expected to touch on the extent to which religious liberty can trump discrimination claims.

As the current administration continues to unwind regulations and legal arguments put forth by the Obama Administration, the legal landscape regarding LGBT employment issues will continue to remain in flux. Stay tuned to this blog for further analysis of subsequent developments.

For more information on this topic, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth Attorney, or any member of Seyfarth Shaw’s Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.

By Daniel B. Klein and Kelsey P. Montgomery

Seyfarth Synopsis: Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker recently signed the Transgender Public Accommodations Bill into law. Massachusetts now protects transgender persons from discrimination in places of public accommodation. Specifically, a transgender person now has the right to use the restroom and locker room that matches that person’s gender identity.

On July 8, 2016, Governor Baker signed into law a bill that prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in restaurants, movie theaters, bars, hotels, and other places of public accommodation. This legislation aims to protect persons whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with their sex assigned at birth.

While Massachusetts has prohibited transgender discrimination in housing, education, and employment since 2011, those same protections are now extended to public accommodations. Specifically, this law protects a transgender person’s right to use the restroom and locker room that matches that person’s gender identity.

The House of Representatives and Senate had approved similar versions of this bill in early June and May 2016, respectively. These bills were referred to conference committee where their differences could be reconciled.  On July 6, 2016, the committee issued a compromise bill that kept the House provisions authorizing the Attorney General’s Office to create regulations for law enforcement agencies should anyone invoke gender identity for an “improper purpose” and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to develop policies and recommendations on when and how a person’s gender identity would be established.  These provisions were key sticking points for some opponents who argued that alleged “predators” could pose as transgender women in order to gain access to women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

The bill will take effect on October 1, 2016, as a result of a second compromise between the House version, which called for a January 1, 2017 implementation, and the Senate version, which would have taken effect immediately.

Although this law protects much more than a transgender person’s right to use the restroom, locker room, or changing room of that person’s choice—this is the issue that concerns retailers and other businesses the most. Generally, best practices suggest offering customers gender-neutral single occupancy restrooms, locker rooms, or changing rooms or providing enhanced privacy in multiple-occupant facilities.

Massachusetts businesses that serve the public, as well as other employers, should also immediately make their employees aware of the rights of transgender persons. Training on sensitivity to gender identity issues and revising non-discrimination policies to include protections for transgender persons are recommended as well.

For more information on this or related topics, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Seyfarth Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.

 

 

By Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Kylie Byron

It seems that not a day goes by without the media reporting on a new “Bathroom Bill.” These bills which have been proposed in a number of states, including Illinois, South Dakota, Washington, and Missouri, aim to restrict the access of transgender people to bathrooms and locker rooms.

Many of these bills focus on public facilities and, frequently, the rights of students under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These bills while addressed to the public sector, raise important questions for employers. Indeed, employers with increasing frequency are navigating “the restroom question” in their workplaces.

To guide employers through this issue, both the Federal government and certain states have issued guidance. Recently, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing released its own set of bathroom-related guidelines. The guidelines also addressed a number of other transgender employment related topics, which we wrote about here.

The DFEH guidelines provide that “all employees have a right to safe and appropriate restroom facilities.” The guidelines go on to instruct employers that transgender employees have the right to use a restroom or locker room that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity regardless of the employee’s assigned sex at birth. The guidelines underscore that there is not a particular medical or legal event required for an employee to be transgender, and that transgender employees should not be required to show proof of medical or legal status changes in order to be accommodated appropriately.

The DFEH notes that employers should also consider offering a single-occupancy restroom option. Such a bathroom ensures employee privacy. The DFEH guidelines further provide that if an employer provides a single-occupancy bathroom, it must make clear that use of this restroom is voluntary. Employees should not be required to use a single occupancy restroom. A practical benefit of offering a single-occupancy restroom option is that it provides an alternative restroom for employees who do not wish to share a restroom with a transgender coworker.

The instructions provided by the DFEH align with the June 2015 Guidelines of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA’s Guidelines provide that transgender employees must be provided access to the restroom that matches their gender identity. OSHA notes that refusal to provide such access can result in health problems and potential liability.  Like the DFEH, OSHA also recommends providing a single-occupancy restroom, which employees can use who are uncomfortable with using gendered restrooms.

This guidance of the DFEH and OSHA underscores that Employers should increase their awareness of and sensitivity to issues related to gender identity and expression in the workplace. Employers should also continue to evaluate and update their internal policies, practices and procedures with an eye towards these state and federal guidelines. Employers in deciding what if any changes to make should also keep in mind the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent interpretation of Title VII as prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

By Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Chris Kelleher

Are Federal Courts ready to recognize that Title VII’s anti-discrimination prohibition extends to claims of sexual orientation?

This question will be decided when the Seventh Circuit issues a ruling in Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. Such a ruling may be imminent as this case is fully briefed, and oral argument has been held.

To date Federal Courts have by an overwhelming margin refused to apply Title VII to claims of sexual orientation discrimination. Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 224 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2000).  However, there is a great deal of pressure on Federal Courts to revisit this issue, in light of the increasing disconnect between societal acceptance of LGBT individuals and Congress’ refusal to pass a non-discrimination law that expressly covers LGBT individuals. This pressure has only grown since the EEOC’s issuance of Baldwin v. Foxx, EEOC Appeal No. 2012-24738–FAA-03 (July 15, 2015).  In Baldwin, the EEOC for the first-time issued a precedential ruling stating that sexual orientation discrimination is per se “sex” discrimination prohibited under Title VII.

In Hively, the plaintiff asserts that her employer discriminated against her because she is a lesbian.  Plaintiff argues that this alleged mistreatment was “because of sex” and thus barred by Title VII.  She asserts several arguments.  First, that she faced adverse action because she failed to conform with the gender stereotype that women are attracted to men.  Second, that discriminating against a woman based on the gender of the person she loves is akin to associational race discrimination, which courts unanimously condemn. She explains that when a white woman asks for time off to care for her ill spouse, Title VII should no more allow the employer to say “so long as your spouse is a man” than the employer can say “so long as your spouse is white.”

Her employer argues that sexual orientation discrimination, while reprehensible, is not prohibited by Title VII.  In its view Title VII is meant to protect sex as a characteristic – that is, being male or being female – but not “sex”-based association. For support, Defendant notes that nothing in the text or legislative history of Title VII supports extending Title VII’s protections to claims of sexual orientation discrimination. Defendant stresses that Congress, not the judiciary, is the proper body to expand the scope of Title VII.  It notes that Congress has twice amended Title VII without addressing sexual orientation, and  has repeatedly declined to pass laws such as ENDA that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.

How the Seventh Circuit rules will give insight into whether Federal Courts are willing to look beyond past precedent and adopt the EEOC’s view that sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination and thus barred under the current text of Title VII. Stay tuned, as we will continue to blog on forthcoming developments in this rapidly evolving area of the law.

By Kevin Fritz

A recent charge of discrimination against a large media company brings gender stereotyping front and center. A large entertainment corporation had a paid time off policy for new parents that provided 10 weeks paid leave for biological mothers, but only two weeks for biological fathers. One male employee — and recent father– claimed that the policy was discriminatory and presented an issue of gender bias.  But was the recent dad really getting shorted? Do similar paternity leave policies discriminate against males on the basis of their gender?

Of course, there is no clear answer. And while an overwhelming majority of sex bias claims are still filed by women, the anticipated influx of same-sex parents, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, underscores that this is an increasingly important issue facing employers. Continue Reading Can Dad Get Paid to Stay Home With Baby New Year?