LGBTQ+ Discrimination

With the recent conclusion of the Bostock v. Clayton case ruling in favor of Gerald Bostock, a man who sued his employer based on sexual orientation along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employers from discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In ruling, the Court wrote, “[to] discriminate against any individual ‘because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’ Looking to the ordinary public meaning of each word and phrase comprising that provision, the Court interpreted to mean that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based, at least in part, on sex.” This does include discrimination against one’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and people who identify as transexual.

A. State & Federal Law

Because of the aforementioned ruling, State and Federal law now protect employees from discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

You must act quickly to preserve your sexual orientation discrimination claim or gender identity discrimination claim. For a private employer, there are short and strict deadlines statute of limitations for sex discrimination cases. From the date of the incident, you must act within 180 days to preserve your claims under the Texas Labor Code and within 300 days to preserve your claims under Title VII.

B. Federal Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Gender Stereotypes

The 5th Circuit decided in EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction, L.L.C. that an employer cannot discriminate against employees based on gender stereotypes. In this case, the plaintiff suffered, “almost-daily verbal and physical harassment because Woods did not conform to Wolfe’s view of how a man should act.”

The 5th Circuit Has Twice Left Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Transgender Discrimination an Open Question

The issue of sexual orientation discrimination has come before the 5th Circuit before, and the Court declined to opine, saying in Brandon v. Sage Corporation, “We do not opine here whether Brandon correctly surmised that Eure [the apparently transgender employee] may claim some protection under Title VII.” In Stewart v. BrownGreer, P.L.C., the Court also left open the question when it assumed for the sake of the argument that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected employees from sexual orientation discrimination.