The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) that expanded the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title VII (“Title VII”) of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity has had significant implications for state anti-discrimination laws. Over the past two years, several states have announced their intent to enforce their own anti-discrimination laws in accordance with Bostock rationale.
Under Title VII, employers with at least fifteen employees are prohibited from taking adverse employment action against an individual, including refusal to hire, “because of…sex.”[1] Traditionally, courts have interpreted Title VII’s protection against sex discrimination as extending only to an employee’s gender assigned at birth. However, in 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) expanded the protection to include gender identity. The EEOC came to this conclusion after considering an appeal in which an employer eliminated their employee’s position after learning of the employee’s transgender status.[2]
On June 15, 2020, following a circuit split on whether Title VII extended to LGBTQ+ employees, the Supreme Court held that “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” See Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. Thus, discrimination based on...
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WSFA) - A New York man and two companies he operates agreed to pay $1 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act, according to the Department of Justi...