Vogel Law Firm
  • Home
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • Careers
  • Client Portal
  • Testimonials
  • Contact

call us today
866-771-9930

  • Home
  • Professionals
  • Blog
  • Careers
  • Client Portal
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • X Close
CONTACT

BLOG

LGBTQ Rights – What the Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Means for Area Employers

by Vogel Law Firm | Jun 25, 2020 | Employer Rights

By: Lisa Edison-Smith

On June 15, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal civil rights law ban on employment discrimination “based on sex” applies to discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  In a surprise 6-3 decision written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court announced that Title VII is clear:  “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

Background – The law in question is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII, signed by President Lyndon Johnson, prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, religion, color, national origin, and sex.  But, what does discrimination on “the basis of sex” really mean?

The Bostock case was a consolidation of three cases, two involving individuals terminated from employment because they were gay.  Gerald Bostock was fired after a decade as a child welfare advocate in Georgia after he joined a gay softball league.  Donald Zarda was terminated as a skydiving instructor after he mentioned he was gay.  A third plaintiff, Aimee Stephens presented as male when hired by Harris Funeral Homes, but was fired when she announced she had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and advised to begin living as a woman.  The lower courts hearing the cases disagreed on whether Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex extended to homosexuals or transgender individuals.  Thus, the Supreme Court heard the case to provide consistency between the courts.

Homosexuality or Transgender Status Irrelevant – Justice Gorsuch first repeated the Court’s prior holdings that under Title VII, an employee’s sex “is not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees.”  Justice Gorsuch went on, stating that the application of Title VII to homosexual or transgender individuals is “equally simple and momentous,” stating “An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.”

Although the defendants argued vigorously that Congress could not have intended to cover LGBTQ individuals under Title VII in 1964, when the law was passed, Justice Gorsuch was unfaltering. According to him, when the simple text of the statute provides the answer to the question, there is no reason to look to the original intent of the legislation.

Justice Gorsuch provided simple illustrations of how treating homosexuals and transgender individuals differently is inherently based on sex.  For example, a male employee who brings a male spouse to a holiday party is fired.  A female employee who brings a male spouse is not fired.  The distinction is based on the sex of the individual.  The individual’s homosexuality is a secondary issue, but the primary difference is the sex of the individual.  The same analysis applies to transgender individuals.  A transgender female, such as Stephens, was fired because she intended to dress and present as a female.  Obviously, a female employee would not be penalized for the same behavior. Thus, sex “plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision [in such cases], exactly what Title VII forbids.”

What this Means for North Dakota and Minnesota Employers – Minnesota has long recognized sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  Thus, in Minnesota, Bostock does not change the basic legal landscape for employers.

For North Dakota employers, Bostock confirms that employers subject to Title VII (those with 15 or more employees) cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including transgender status.  Further, Commissioner Erica Thunder of the North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights has confirmed that her office interprets the North Dakota Human Rights Act harmonious with federal law.  Thus, employers of any size may not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity in North Dakota.  Employers who fail to hire homosexual or transgender candidates or treat them differently based on sex may be subject not only to administrative complaints, but also to expensive lawsuits. 

Tips for Employers – The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM®) provides a helpful checklist for employers to eliminate LGBTQ bias and comply with Title VII.  The organization’s suggestions include reviewing and updating all policies to ensure that “sexual orientation and gender identity or expression” are included expressly in employee handbooks and policies as protected classes.   In addition, benefits and hiring practices should be reviewed, as well as workplace rules.  Policies that assume traditional gender roles and heterosexual relationships should be revised.  In addition, the key is training not only supervisors, but all employees on the law, the employer’s expectations and commitment to following the law, and providing a respectful, welcoming workplace. 

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.” – Justice Neil Gorsuch

Disclaimer:These materials are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Vogel Law Firm and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through these materials are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the Vogel Law Firm or any individual attorney. Under no circumstances shall the Vogel Law Firm have any liability to you for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of the information or your reliance on any information provided.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Categories

  • Bankruptcy (3)
  • Business Law (4)
  • Child Custody (1)
  • COVID-19 (27)
  • Criminal Defense (8)
  • Debtor/Creditor (2)
  • Divorce (2)
  • DNR (1)
  • DUI (1)
  • Employer Rights (20)
  • Employment Law (24)
  • Estate Planning (5)
  • Family Law (3)
  • Firm News (31)
  • Immigration (1)
  • Injuries (1)
  • IRAs (1)
  • Life Insurance (1)
  • Paid Leave (2)
  • Personal Injury (5)
  • Premarital Agreements (1)
  • Prenuptial Agreements (1)
  • The North Dakota Employer's Blog (6)
  • Uncategorized (59)
  • Unemployment Insurance (1)
  • Wrongful Death (2)

Archives

  • January 2021 (5)
  • December 2020 (5)
  • October 2020 (1)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (2)
  • July 2020 (2)
  • June 2020 (4)
  • May 2020 (9)
  • April 2020 (12)
  • March 2020 (12)
  • February 2020 (11)
  • January 2020 (2)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (3)
  • July 2019 (2)
  • June 2019 (3)
  • May 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (1)
  • October 2018 (2)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (3)
  • July 2018 (2)
  • June 2018 (4)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (3)
  • October 2017 (1)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (4)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • January 2017 (1)
  • December 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (2)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • May 2016 (5)
  • April 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (1)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • January 2016 (3)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (2)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (2)
  • April 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (1)
  • October 2014 (1)
  • August 2014 (1)
  • June 2014 (1)
  • May 2014 (1)
  • October 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (2)
  • January 2013 (1)
  • December 2012 (1)
  • November 2012 (2)
  • October 2012 (1)
  • February 2012 (1)

Recent Posts

  • The North Dakota Employer’s Blog: Mask Mandate Update
  • The North Dakota Employer’s Blog: Independent Contractor or Employee?
  • The North Dakota Employer’s Blog – My Employee Stormed the Capitol: Can I fire him for that?
  • The North Dakota Employer’s Blog: What Now? Stepping Away from the Edge
  • The North Dakota Employer’s Blog: North Dakota Legislature Convenes
Bg SubscribeSubscribe To This Blog's FeedFindLaw Network

Quality Attorneys. Quality Care.

Ultimately, we measure our success in terms of how we improve the lives of our clients.
We never forget that the most important part in any legal matter is the people involved.

Experience The Vogel Law Firm Difference

Quality legal service starts with contacting Vogel Law Firm. Call 866-771-9930 or submit the form to request a consultation.

Email Us For A Response

Experience The Vogel Law Firm Difference

Quality legal service starts with contacting Vogel Law Firm. Call 866-771-9930 or submit the form to request a consultation.

ECN | Employers Counsel Network
Fellow Litigation Counsel of America
Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Listed In Best Lawyers | The World's Premier Guide
ALFA International | The Global Legal Network

Fargo Office

218 NP Avenue
Fargo, ND 58102

Phone: 866-771-9930

Fax: 701-356-6395

Fargo Law Office Map

Bismarck Office

200 North 3rd Street,
Suite 201
Bismarck, ND 58501

Phone: 701-214-4393

Fax: 701-258-9705

Bismarck Law Office Map

Moorhead Office

215 30th Street North
Moorhead, MN 56560

Phone: 218-979-4994

Fax: 218-236-9873

Moorhead Law Office Map

Minneapolis Office

7300 West 147th Street,
Suite 304
Apple Valley, MN 55124

Phone: 952-236-4947

Fax: 952-898-4070

Apple Valley Law Office Map

Grand Forks Office

2825 36th Avenue South,
Suite A
Grand Forks, ND 58201

Phone: 701-203-4156

Fax: 701-864-2748

Grand Forks Law Office Map
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
Review Us
Employee Email

© 2021 Vogel Law Firm. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters