Lessons Learned: Four Years Ago, the Supreme Court Decided Bostock, Expressly Extending Title VII’s Prohibitions on Sex Discrimination to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression
Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
June 26, 2024
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County and held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), expressly extending Title VII’s prohibitions on sex discrimination to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (2024-2028) includes a focus on combatting systemic discrimination and harassment, including discrimination and harassment based on sex. Consistent with this focus, the EEOC recently announced that it filed lawsuits this Pride Month against two employers for sex discrimination.
In a lawsuit filed in Alabama, the EEOC alleges that Harmony Hospitality LLC, which operates a Home2 Suites by Hilton hotel in Dothan, Alabama, fired a night auditor after he reported to Harmony’s premises for a scheduled meeting outside of work hours styled and dressed in a way that management perceived to be feminine. This meeting was the first time that the employee reported to Harmony’s premises in a style that significantly differed from male gender stereotypes. The EEOC claims that management learned about the employee’s sexual orientation and gender identity when his supervisor opposed management’s request to ask the employee to change his appearance and opposed management’s request to “hide” the employee during his shift. The EEOC contends that Harmony terminated the employee a mere seven hours after the supervisor informed management that the employee is gay and identifies as “more feminine.” The case is EEOC v. Harmony Hospitality LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00357 (M.D.Ala.)
In the second lawsuit, filed in Illinois, the EEOC alleges that LAS Hardwoods, a hardwood flooring company in the Chicago area, created a hostile work environment for a sales associate because of his sexual orientation. The EEOC claims that LAS managers and employees harassed the employee, including subjecting him to the use of gay slurs and physical abuse because of his perceived feminine appearance, speech, handwriting, and mannerisms. The EEOC contends that LAS ignored the employee’s complaints. The case is EEOC v. LAS Hardwoods, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04899 (N.D. Ill.).
Employers: As EEOC General Counsel Karla Gilbride stated about these lawsuits, workers “should be able to work in any job without fear of being harassed or fired because of who they are or who they love.”
*Special thanks to Ava Petrellese, our paralegal, for her contributions to this article.
The author of this article, Patricia Tsipras, is a member of the Bar of Pennsylvania. This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice in Pennsylvania, Alabama, Illinois, or any other jurisdiction, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
