Tag: sex discrimination

Gender Discrimination

U.S. Supreme Court Prohibits Sexual Orientation & Gender Discrimination Nationwide

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision extending employment discrimination protections to LGBTQ employees across the country. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Unlike some state employment discrimination statutes, Title VII does not expressly address sexual orientation or gender discrimination. Before this ruling, federal courts had disagreed whether Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on “sex” extended into those areas. The Supreme Court’s decision conclusively answers that question in the affirmative.

Case Background

The Supreme Court’s opinion came out of three separate cases involving employers who fired their employees allegedly for identifying as gay or transgender. The employees sued their employers for sex discrimination under Title VII.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 majority’s opinion holding: “An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex . . . [b]ecause discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex. An employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII”. In other words, this decision generally prohibits employers from disciplining, firing, failing or refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminating against an employee (or a prospective employee) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Majority Rationale

The Supreme Court focused on the meanings of the terms used in Title VII at the time of its enactment. The majority considered the ordinary public meaning of “sex,” finding that the term refers to the biological distinction between males and females. After establishing the applicable definition of “sex,” the Court applied the “but for” causation standard to establish if the defendant employers had violated Title VII. This standard asks whether a particular outcome would not have happened ‘but for’ the alleged discriminatory basis. In this case, the employers would not have fired the plaintiffs, “but for” the employees’ sexual orientation or transgender status. The Court held that as long as the plaintiff’s sex was the “but for” cause of the termination, it was enough to trigger Title VII liability.

Dissenting Views

The three dissenting justices relied on strict constructionist views of the definition of “sex”. Specifically, they focused on what they felt the average person would have viewed the term to mean when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964. According to Justice Alito, at that time, “[d]iscrimination ‘because of sex’ was not understood as having anything to do with discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status.”

Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that the Court should rely on the “ordinary meaning” rather than the “literal meaning” of “sex”. He then concluded that “discrimination because of sex” does not encompass “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” discrimination.

New York Impact

The Supreme Court ruling will not have much practical impact on employees and employers in New York. In 2016, the New York State Division of Human Rights issued regulations interpreting the protected category “sex” to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity and the status of being transgender. The regulations defined “gender identity” as “having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth”. Then, in 2019 the New York Human Rights Law was amended to include “gender or identity or expression” among the statutory characteristics protected from employment discrimination.

The New York State Human Rights Law had already prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation since 2003.

For more, read New York GENDA Amends Human Rights Law.

Religious Institutions

The Supreme Court discussed concerns about Title VII carveouts for religious institutions. The First Amendment bars applying employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers”. The Court decided not to decide this issue and left the question for future cases. The decision also does not specifically resolve issues like sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms.

Update Your Policies

Employers subject to Title VII (most with at least 15 employees) now clearly may not take adverse employment action against an employee or a prospective employee based on their homosexuality or transgender status. If an employer discriminates based on employee’s “sex” status, including sexual orientation or transgender status, they may be liable for monetary damages. This can include lost wages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages. Especially if your business was not already subject to state laws prohibiting these forms of discrimination, you should promptly review and update policies and training materials.

Love Contracts

Love Contracts Under #MeToo

Does your human resources department deal with love contracts? If you think this is a crazy question, then you probably haven’t gone down this road before. But these are real legal documents that some companies use when co-workers become involved in romantic relationships. Love contracts (or office relationship contracts) have never been overly commonplace. And the #MeToo movement and the related heightened attention on workplace sexual harassment issues, perhaps ironically, may be revealing even more reason not to use them.

What Are Love Contracts?

You might sooner think of a prenuptial agreement than the type of contract we’re talking about here. But these love contracts are designed primarily to protect employers, not the people who are, well, in love! However, the couple might receive some benefit as well–the ability to continue their relationship without forfeiting their jobs.

There is no straightforward legal definition of a “love contract.” But they usually address these items (perhaps among others):

  • Acknowledgment of a consensual romantic relationship
  • Reiteration of the company’s equal opportunity and anti-harassment policies
  • Guidelines for appropriate workplace behavior
  • Identification of the reporting relationship (if any) between the employees and any potential conflicts of interest
  • Any change in work circumstances necessary to enable the relationship to continue without impairing work performance
  • Recognition that romantic relationships don’t always work out
  • Agreement that the romantic relationship (or its dissolution) does not constitute a violation of company harassment policies

The terms of one of these contracts are usually not negotiable. The company provides the document to the employees. If they choose to sign, then they continue employment and, as they desire, their personal relationship. If either employee refuses to sign, then the company takes alternative action. This could include either re-assigning or possibly terminating one or both of the employees.

Do Love Contracts Work?

One could ask this question from many different perspectives. However, the answer would always be about the same: Maybe, in some respects, but there are no guarantees.

1. Do they encourage employees to disclose workplace romances?

Sometimes, but not always. Dating and sex are topics that most employees don’t want to talk about with HR in the first place. The prospect of possibly being asked to sign a love contract probably further diminishes the incentive to report.

Then you add in the fact that some meaningful percentage of extra-workplace relationships between co-workers are extramarital affairs. Hardly anyone will want to disclose those to their employer, much less put it in writing!

2. Do they ensure that relationships don’t cause trouble at work?

Casual dating among co-workers doesn’t have to be a big problem, and probably isn’t in many cases. The same can be true of more established relationships. But, in either situation, there’s always the reasonable possibility that at least one person will end up upset.

Keep in mind too that relationships don’t always affect just two people. Third parties can also become involved. What of the other employee who is attracted to one of the employees in a workplace relationship? People who were formally involved with one of them? Current or former spouses? For the most part, these “outsiders” won’t be part of a love contract, but could still take offense or otherwise become disgruntled about the relationships or how it carries over into the workplace.

3. Do they prevent sexual harassment claims?

Present data on that question would be hard. But love contracts likely have prevented sexual harassment claims here and there. In different instances, either because they helped employees behave appropriately regarding their relationship or simply discouraged one of the employees from making a claim in light of the existing agreement.

One could also guess that love contracts have, at times, prompted sexual harassment (or sex discrimination) claims. If nothing else, raising the legal significance of the relationship by requiring a contract could make some employees more likely to seek formal recourse when the love dies.

Legally, it is unlikely that the existence of a love contract would automatically “defeat” an employee’s sexual harassment claim. Employees can’t prospectively waive these claims as a formal matter. However, the acknowledgment of the consensual relationship could help the employer overcome some allegations (i.e., that the relationship wasn’t consensual).

As suggested above, love contracts are especially unlikely to prevent or disprove harassment or discrimination claims by employees outside of the relationship. If a co-worker claims he was passed over for a promotion that went to one of the love contract signees because that person was in a relationship with a decisionmaker (the other love contract signee), then the love contract would probably be irrelevant as to that claim.

How Does #MeToo Enter the Equation?

From a societal standpoint, it probably shouldn’t. Workplace sexual harassment has always been inappropriate, and it has been illegal for many years.

At the same time, most companies that have asked employees to sign love contracts probably had good intentions. They weren’t prioritizing hiding sexual harassment. They were trying to make sure that nothing unwelcome was occurring in the first place. HR wouldn’t (in all but the worst run organizations) put undue pressure on an employee to sign an agreement saying they were having a consensual sexual relationship if the employee didn’t believe at the time that it was consensual. If the employee instead said they felt subject to harassment, good companies would have promptly investigated the claim and taken appropriate corrective action.

The positive impact of love contracts on employees has been that they were able to continue to pursue their hearts and their careers (potentially) without interruption. Without love contracts, employers might have (lawfully) forced the employees to choose between their relationship or their jobs.

Now, of course, sexual harassment is at the forefront of media and business attention. That’s good in the sense of hopefully reducing the incidence of harassment. But it does risk increased litigation, which imposes costs on employers.

All told, anyone faced with a workplace romantic relationship these days should be on high alert. Again, no one (whose opinion matters) wants sexual harassment to occur. We don’t want employees to be disadvantaged because they didn’t accept romantic or sexual advances or because co-workers did. At the same time, few employees want to go to HR and put this target on their backs. And, frankly, probably fewer and fewer human resources department or managers want to hear about these relationships because of how complex the implications can be. Sure, they’ll try to do the right thing as problems arise, but that’s different than proactively asking people to sign legal documents related to their romantic, probably sexual, activities.

What’s the Alternative to Love Contracts?

Let’s leave open the possibility love contracts might still work well in some situations. Use them thoughtfully, on a case-by-case basis, though consistent with company policies. Get legal advice and don’t assume they’ll solve all your problems.

As an alternative, many companies have anti-fraternization policies. The limits of these policies vary. Some prohibit any dating or romantic relationships between employees. Others only restrict relationships between employees in the same departments or within the same reporting structure.

Unfortunately, these fraternization or dating policies share many of the same side-effects as love contracts. Principal among them is that they encourage employees to hide their relationships at work. On the one hand, this could be good to the extent that it prevents the relationship from directly affecting the workplace. On the other hand, it can create animosity among employees who do find out about relationships.

Again, it’s not fair to universally condemn or endorse anti-fraternization policies. What works in one workplace might not work in another. But there is one policy that is paramount for all organizations: the anti-harassment policy.

All employers should have written anti-harassment policies covering sexual harassment and all other categories protected by applicable laws (which may vary from state to state). Whatever preventative measures might be in place, employers must take all allegations of sexual harassment seriously, investigate promptly, and take appropriate action.

 

Horton Law PLLC shares legal updates and best practice reminders for employers through its monthly email newsletters and regular complimentary webinars. Sign up here to stay informed.

 

Transgender Employees New York

Transgender Employees in New York

There are an estimated 1.4 million individuals in the United States who identify as transgender. People may consider themselves transgender or gender nonconforming if their gender identity is inconsistent with the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender individuals often go through a transition, where they adopt different pronouns, receive hormone treatments, and sometimes undergo surgery. With these diverse circumstances evolving for many Americans, you may have transgender employees in your workplace right now without even realizing it.

Many new questions are arising regarding the applicability of employment laws to transgender status. At the federal level, this issue remains very much in transition. In New York, however, the law is clearer. In 2016, the New York State Division of Human Rights issued regulations clarifying that the New York Human Rights Law protects transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in several ways.

It is essential for employers to be aware of these regulations to ensure their policies and practices are compliant.

Who Are Transgender Employees?

The New York Human Rights Law has long prohibited discrimination in employment based on a person’s sex. The 2006 regulations expressly expanded the scope of that protection by defining “sex” to include “gender identity and the status of being transgender.”

The regulations include the following definitions:

Gender Identity “means having or being perceived as having a gender identity different from the sex assigned to that individual at birth.”

Transgender describes an individual “who has a gender identity different from the sex assigned to that individual at birth.”

Gender dysphoria “is a recognized medical condition related to an individual having a gender identity different from the sex assigned at birth.”

Discrimination

The New York Human Rights Law applies to employers with at least 4 employees. Covered employers may not discriminate in regards to employment based on sex. With the expanded definitions, this means that covered employers cannot discriminate regarding gender identity or transgender status.

The Human Rights Law also prohibits disability discrimination and requires employees to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. The 2016 regulations further clarified that the term disability, as used in the law, includes gender dysphoria. Thus, employers may not discriminate against employees based on gender dysphoria. The regulations also specifically state that “[r]efusal to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with gender dysphoria or other condition meeting the definition of disability in the Human Rights Law . . . is disability discrimination.”

Harassment

The Human Rights Law also prohibits workplace harassment based on sex and disability. The regulations now establish that harassment on the basis of transgender status is unlawful. This means employers and other employees may not harass an employee based on their gender identity or transgender status. Thus, employers cannot ask about an applicant’s gender or transgender status during a job interview. And employees must respect a transgender individual’s preferred name and pronouns, as insisting on alternative names or pronouns could constitute harassment.

Notably, the Human Rights Law’s sexual harassment protections apply to all employees, even if their employer has fewer than 4 employees.

Bathroom Usage

One particular area of confusion and discomfort regarding transgender individuals is bathroom usage. Consistent with the broad protections of the Human Rights Law, New York employers generally should allow employees to access the restroom that matches their gender identity, regardless of whether it makes other employees or customers uncomfortable. Gender neutral bathrooms are an option, but employers probably may not force particular employees to use a single stall restroom if others are also available for employee use.

Illustrative School District Guidance

New York State has issued several guidance documents regarding transgender bathroom use in public schools. Although not directly applicable to employers (other than schools), the principles demonstrate the State’s general approach toward the issue. As recently as February 2018, the State Attorney General’s Office and the Commissioner of Education issued a joint reminder that school districts in New York State have an obligation to provide all students with “a safe and nondiscriminatory educational environment without regard to their gender identity.”

The State document acknowledged that federal law arguably does not impose these requirements, but emphasized that New York school districts “have independent duties to protect transgender students from discrimination and harassment in their schools and at all school functions. This includes an obligation to allow students to use bathrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identities. Furthermore, New York’s Dignity for All Students Act prohibits discrimination and harassment, on school property or at a school event, on the basis of a student’s gender identity or expression.”

Similar juxtaposition applies in the workplace. Whereas the legalities remain uncertain at the federal level, New York law provides more direct protection to transgender applicants and employees.

Dress Codes

Legal issues involving dress codes are complex. It is often best not to set different dress standards for male and female employees without compelling business reasons. And to avoid potential discrimination claims under the Human Rights Law, employers should allow employees to dress according to their gender identity.

New York City Human Rights Law

The New York City Human Rights Law also includes broad protection for transgender workers.  The New York City Commission on Human Rights has issued guidance that goes into greater detail than the state-wide regulations. In fact the guidance begins with an affirmation that the New York City Human Rights Law must be interpreted “’independently from similar or identical provisions of New York state or federal statutes,’ such that ‘similarly worded provisions of federal and state civil rights laws [are] a floor below which the City’s Human Rights law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise.’”

Organizations with employees working within New York City should become familiar with the city’s additional restrictions and requirements.

Conclusion

The application of existing laws to situations involving transgender and gender nonconforming individuals is rapidly developing. Many employers who have never had to consider issues related to transgender employees will need to at some point in he future. Thus, it will be critical that employers stay up-to-date on potential changes to federal, state, and local laws.

One way to keep informed about this and other workplace legal issues is to subscribe to Horton Law’s monthly email newsletter. You will also receive announcements about our complimentary webinars.