EEOC Says Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Already Barred

[+ Gar1eth]

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Barred By Existing Law, Federal Commission Rules

“[A]llegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex” barred by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in a groundbreaking decision this week.

Originally posted on Jul. 16, 2015, at 3:00 p.m.Updated on Jul. 16, 2015, at 5:23 p.m.

http://s3-ak.buzzfeed.com/static/user_images/webdr05/2013/7/24/11/chrisgeidner-8667-1374681498-58_large.jpg

Chris Geidner

BuzzFeed News Reporter

the commission ruled that gender identity-based discrimination is barred by the sex discrimination ban. In December 2014, the Justice Department announced a similar view of the law — stating that it would apply that interpretation in its cases.

 

While the EEOC had been pushing toward today's decision with cases and even field guidanceaddressing coverage under Title VII of specific types of discrimination faced by gay people, the July 15 decision states that "sexual orientation is inherently a 'sex-based consideration.'"

 

In reviewing courts' prior interpretation of the words of Title VII, the commission acknowledged plainly that sexual orientation itself is not listed as a type of discrimination barred in the 1964 law.

 

"[T]he question is not whether sexual orientation is explicitly listed in Title VII as a prohibited basis for employment actions. It is not," the commission found. Instead, the commission stated that the question is the same as in any other Title VII sex discrimination case: "whether the agency has 'relied on sex-based considerations' or 'take[n] gender into account' when taking the challenged employment action."

 

The commission found that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination for several reasons. Among the reasons, the commission stated, is because sexual orientation discrimination "necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee's sex" and "because it is associational discrimination on the basis of sex."

 

After a review of the case law regarding similar challenges to employment practices alleging a violation of Title VII where the initial understanding of the law would not have included that coverage, the commission stated, "The courts have gone where the principles of Title VII have directed."

 

"Our task is the same," the decision found. "We therefore conclude that Complainant's allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex. We further conclude that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex."

 

Tico Almeida, the head of Freedom to Work, celebrated the decision — and urged LGBT groups to go to the courts to seek codification of the ruling.

 

"Freedom to Work applauds this historic decision by the EEOC, and we encourage gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals who face harassment or discrimination on the job to consult an attorney and file Title VII claims with the EEOC and eventually the federal courts," he said. "Our LGBT movement should take this strongly reasoned legal victory and run with it by returning to the federal courts to win workplace protections in all fifty states.

 

The Human Rights Campaign's president, Chad Griffin, pushed for legislative action to confirm the protections.

 

"This historic ruling by the EEOC makes clear they agree workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, much like gender identity, is illegal," he said, adding, "While an important step, it also highlights the need for a comprehensive federal law permanently and clearly banning LGBT discrimination beyond employment to all areas of American life. Such a law would send a clear and permanent signal that discrimination against LGBT people will not be tolerated under any circumstances in this country, and we remain fully committed to making that happen."

 

Almeida, however, shot back, "I bet we can get LGBT workplace or housing cases to the U.S. Supreme Court sooner than the U.S. House of Representatives will allow an up-or-down vote on a comprehensive LGBT non-discrimination bill."

 

 

 

 

CORRECTION

 

 

 

Although the decision does not note the objections, a spokesperson from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informed BuzzFeed News after publication of this article that "the decision was not issued without objection. It was a vote of the Commission and the decision was approved by a vote of 3 to 2." The story has been updated to reflect the commission's vote; an earlier version of this story stated that the decision was issued without objection.

 

 

 

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

I wonder what this means regarding employees at religious schools being fired for being married.

 

 

Gman

[+ quoththeraven]

I wonder what this means regarding employees at religious schools being fired for being married.

 

 

Gman

 

Possibly nothing. The free exercise clause if the First Amendment means employment in core religious positions can be conditioned on doctrinal adherence. Question would be whether positions at a school are religious or secular and whether school was advancing core religious interest. For example, no one questions that religious organizations can refuse to ordain women or gays. At the very least, it's not the slam dunk gay marriage is.

[+ Gar1eth]

Possibly nothing. The free exercise clause if the First Amendment means employment in core religious positions can be conditioned on doctrinal adherence. Question would be whether positions at a school are religious or secular and whether school was advancing core religious interest. For example, no one questions that religious organizations can refuse to ordain women or gays. At the very least, it's not the slam dunk gay marriage is.

 

 

I remember reading something about some group that is probably classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group advising religious groups to write 'ministering' responsibilities into the job descriptions of all employees so that they would all be considered 'religious' positions.

 

Gman

[+ quoththeraven]

Love the work of the SPLC, btw. While he doesn't work there anymore, that's where the second-year student who taught my legal writing section headed after graduation.