The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed two lawsuits claiming that the plaintiffs were discriminated against because of sexual orientation. These are the first cases the EEOC has filed with Title VII claims based on sexual orientation. One of the lawsuits, EEOC v. Pallett Cos, No. 16-595, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The other, EEOC v. Scott Med. Ctr., was filed in federal court in Pennsylvania.
In Pallett, the EEOC alleges that a manufacturing company discriminated against a lesbian employee. The plaintiff’s sexual orientation was well-known to her coworkers and supervisors. After she began working the night shift, the night shift manager began making comments such as: “I want to turn you back into a woman;” “I want you to like men again;” and “You would look good in a dress.” The supervisor also allegedly quoted biblical passages regarding heterosexual relationships. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff complained in early 2014, however, the employer did not take any action. The supervisor’s behavior continued, the plaintiff complained again and soon thereafter, the company asked the plaintiff to resign; she refused. The company then fired her.
In Scott, the EEOC claims that Scott Medical health Center discriminated against a gay employee. The complaint alleges that the employee was repeatedly harassed because of his sexual orientation, including being subjected to routine homophobic slurs. The employee reported the harassment and later resigned after the company took no action in response to his complaints. The EEOC alleges that the plaintiff’s supervisor harassed him because he is a gay male.
The EEOC contends that Title VII prohibits discrimination because of sexual orientation, which in the agency’s view, is prohibited sex discrimination. In a release coinciding with the two lawsuits, the EEOC summarized the agency’s position:
“On July 15, 2015, EEOC, in a federal sector decision, determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex. See Baldwin v. Dep’t of Transp., Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015). In that case, EEOC explained the reasons why Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation: (1) sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex; (2) sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.”
The full release can be viewed here.
The federal courts are split on the issue of whether sexual orientation is covered by Title VII.
Regardless of the outcome in these two cases, however, employers should adopt and enforce workplace policies regarding discrimination. Implementation and enforcement of policies, and proper workforce training, is a must whether or not the two federal courts find that Title VII outlaws sexual orientation discrimination. If having good workplace practices is not enough incentive, Maryland employers should know that Maryland law already prohibits sexual orientation discrimination.