ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, EEOC rules Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids sexual orientation discrimination

Noodle

Hall of Famer
Jun 19, 2001
29,057
10,248
113
I don't think this has received much attention but the EEOC has ruled, 3-2, that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids sexual orientation discrimination on the job because it’s a form discrimination based on sex. Their logic goes something like this:

Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an
employee less favorably because of the employee's sex. For example, assume that an

employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her desk, but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on his desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a legitimate claim under Title VII in that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse employment action.


While a laudable decision in terms of it's effect, the logic behind it is rather bizarre--not to mention the fact that it distorts the clear and intended meaning of the statute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mination-is-sex-discrimination-says-the-eeoc/
 
I don't think this has received much attention but the EEOC has ruled, 3-2, that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids sexual orientation discrimination on the job because it’s a form discrimination based on sex. Their logic goes something like this:

Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an
employee less favorably because of the employee's sex. For example, assume that an

employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her desk, but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on his desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a legitimate claim under Title VII in that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse employment action.


While a laudable decision in terms of it's effect, the logic behind it is rather bizarre--not to mention the fact that it distorts the clear and intended meaning of the statute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/16/anti-gay-discrimination-is-sex-iscrimination-says-the-eeoc/

Interesting.

From the order:

"Therefore, Tide Vll similarly prolubits employers from treating an enqiloyee or applicant

differentiy than other employees or sqqilicants based on die fact that such individuals are in a

same-sex marriage or because the employee has a personal asscxiation with scmieone of a

particular sex. Adverse action on that basis is, "by definition." discrimination because of the

employee or applicant's sex."
So the complainant need not be a gay or a lesbian to win this claim. If I have pictures of my ski buddies on my desk, and talk about all the good times I have with them skiing, and I suffer an adverse job action because my boss doesn't like me talking about good times with my buddies, I have a claim. At least under this analysis.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

From the order:

"Therefore, Tide Vll similarly prolubits employers from treating an enqiloyee or applicant

differentiy than other employees or sqqilicants based on die fact that such individuals are in a

same-sex marriage or because the employee has a personal asscxiation with scmieone of a

particular sex. Adverse action on that basis is, "by definition." discrimination because of the

employee or applicant's sex."
So the complainant need not be a gay or a lesbian to win this claim. If I have pictures of my ski buddies on my desk, and talk about all the good times I have with them skiing, and I suffer an adverse job action because my boss doesn't like me talking about good times with my buddies, I have a claim. At least uner this analysis.

Or, if your employer is religiously conservative and fires you because you're living with your girlfriend (or plutonic female friend), but does not fire your female co-worker who lives with her female friend.

And let's take it even further--you're a 25 year old guy and one weekend you marry your grandmother's best friend--an 85 year old widow. You show up with her at the office Christmas party and, like your co-worker and his hot, 18 year-old stripper, you make out with your fossil-wife in the corner. Everyone is so grossed out that your boss fires you the following Monday, while your buddy is getting high fives from everyone. Sounds like a claim for employment discrimination based on age!

As I said, I don't think anyone should face employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. But there's a right way and a wrong way to deal with it.
 
Or, if your employer is religiously conservative and fires you because you're living with your girlfriend (or plutonic female friend), but does not fire your female co-worker who lives with her female friend.

And let's take it even further--you're a 25 year old guy and one weekend you marry your grandmother's best friend--an 85 year old widow. You show up with her at the office Christmas party and, like your co-worker and his hot, 18 year-old stripper, you make out with your fossil-wife in the corner. Everyone is so grossed out that your boss fires you the following Monday, while your buddy is getting high fives from everyone. Sounds like a claim for employment discrimination based on age!

As I said, I don't think anyone should face employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. But there's a right way and a wrong way to deal with it.

Yep . . .

That's the difference between advancing the law and advancing a cause.
 
I don't think this has received much attention but the EEOC has ruled, 3-2, that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids sexual orientation discrimination on the job because it’s a form discrimination based on sex. Their logic goes something like this:

Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an
employee less favorably because of the employee's sex. For example, assume that an

employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her desk, but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on his desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a legitimate claim under Title VII in that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse employment action.


While a laudable decision in terms of it's effect, the logic behind it is rather bizarre--not to mention the fact that it distorts the clear and intended meaning of the statute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mination-is-sex-discrimination-says-the-eeoc/
I think he probably got the idea from SCOTUS. I don't remember if it was Roberts or Alito, but one of them brought up in oral arguments the idea that marriage bans are simple sex discrimination, and could be thrown out without touching on the question of sexual orientation. At the time, I thought it was a bizarre line of reasoning, but it was met favorably by a couple of posters here. I wonder if they will step up to defend this ruling now?
 
I think he probably got the idea from SCOTUS. I don't remember if it was Roberts or Alito, but one of them brought up in oral arguments the idea that marriage bans are simple sex discrimination, and could be thrown out without touching on the question of sexual orientation. At the time, I thought it was a bizarre line of reasoning, but it was met favorably by a couple of posters here. I wonder if they will step up to defend this ruling now?

But a sex discrimination challenge to a law is subject to intermediate scrutiny--not strict scrutiny. More importantly, the issue in the EEOC case is purely one of statutory interpretation, rather than evolving beliefs and the like. In addition, proposals have been introduced in Congress for decades attempting to add sexual orientation to Title VII, yet it has never happened. That, along with a myriad of other factors, demonstrates that the EEOC's statutory interpretation is flawed. It's the job of Congress to change Title VII (which they should), not the EEOC's.
 
But a sex discrimination challenge to a law is subject to intermediate scrutiny--not strict scrutiny. More importantly, the issue in the EEOC case is purely one of statutory interpretation, rather than evolving beliefs and the like. In addition, proposals have been introduced in Congress for decades attempting to add sexual orientation to Title VII, yet it has never happened. That, along with a myriad of other factors, demonstrates that the EEOC's statutory interpretation is flawed. It's the job of Congress to change Title VII (which they should), not the EEOC's.
I agree with you. I was just pointing out that the logic behind the ruling has been voiced before, albeit in a different legal context.
 
ADVERTISEMENT