HRC Sends Letters to Federal Agencies Following EEOC’s Historic Filing

This week the Human Rights Campaign sent letters to six federal agencies calling attention to the need for explicit protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under Title VII, Title IX, and the Fair Housing Act similar to protections now in place on the basis of gender identity and transgender status.  HRC’s letters come on the heels of two suits filed in federal court by the Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of workers who experienced harassment and discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

In both of these cases, EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center and EEOC v. Pallet Companies, dba IFCO Systems NA, the Commission filed under Title VII charging that the discrimination faced by the workers was a form of unlawful sex discrimination. In Scott, the Commission charged that a gay male employee was subjected to harassment due to his sexual orientation, charging that the worker’s manager repeatedly used various anti-LGBT epithets when referring to him and made other highly offensive comments related to his sexuality. The EEOC further charged that no action was taken to end the harassment when it was brought to the attention of the clinic director.  Similarly, in IFCO Systems, the EEOC charged that a lesbian employee was harassed by her supervisor because of her sexual orientation. The Commission charged that the supervisor made numerous comments to her regarding her sexual orientation and appearance and made sexually suggestive and lewd gestures towards the employee. The employee was terminated following a formal complaint regarding the harassment to management and the employee harassment hotline.

These cases reflect the EEOC’s now well-established policy regarding sexual orientation discrimination following last summer’s decision in Baldwin v. Foxx.  In Baldwin, the EEOC ruled in favor of a Department of Transportation employee who alleged that he did not receive a promotion because of his sexual orientation.   The EEOC found that Title VII prohibits employers from relying on “sex-based considerations” when making personnel decisions and that these protections apply equally to LGBT individuals under Title VII. The agency concluded that the Department of Transportation had wrongfully relied on sex-based considerations when supervisors declined to promote the complainant due to his sexual orientation. The EEOC held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII because sexual orientation is inseparably linked to sex-based considerations. The Commission clearly stated that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.”   The EEOC further clarified that “[a] complainant alleging that an agency took his or her sexual orientation into account in an employment action necessarily alleges that the agency took his or her sex into account.”

In letters to the Departments of Education, Justice, Labor, HHS, HUD and OMB, HRC urged these agencies to defer to the EEOC regarding the scope of coverage under Title VII as they have done in the past.  Following the EEOC’s 2012 decision in Macy v. Holder, which held that discrimination on the basis gender identity is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice, published clear policies implementing the decision.  This EEOC policy is not a novel outlier. It reflects a clear legal trajectory in federal courts recognizing sexual orientation discrimination as unlawful under Title VII.

www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-sends-letter-to-federal-agencies-following-eeocs-historic-filing?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss-feed

AL Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuits Challenging Marriage Equality

Today, HRC Alabama responded to the news this morning, that the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed lawsuits filed by the Alabama Citizens Action Program (ALCAP), the Alabama Policy Institute (API) and Elmore County Probate Judge John Enslen, regarding the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in favor of marriage equality last June.

“Love won last June, and it’s time for anti-LGBT activists to come to terms with the fact that marriage equality is here to stay,” said Ben Needham, Director of HRC’s Project One America. “No one is above the Supreme Court of the United States and no government officials should be standing in the way of same-sex couples and their constitutional right to marry the person they love.”

In the petition initially filed in March 2015, the plaintiffs contended that the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not apply to the state of Alabama, and that there was precedence for discarding a ruling by the Supreme Court that was believed to unlawful. Today, the nine justices of the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the suit with a one-page order and 170 page opinion, in which Chief Justice Roy Moore, a long standing opponent of marriage equality maintained his opposition to marriage equality, despite the dismissal of the lawsuit.

In January, HRC Alabama strongly condemned Moore’s shameful order saying that the state’s probate judges “have a ministerial duty” not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision. In light of the order, he recused himself from voting earlier this week, but in his opinion today said he no longer believed that was necessary. Moore wrote, “In joining this case to consider the effect of Obergefell, I am not sitting in review of my administrative order, nor have I made any public statement on the effect of Obergefell on this Court’s opinion and order of March 3, 2015. My expressed views on the issue of same-sex marriage are also not disqualifying. Because it is a judge’s duty to decide cases, a judge may participate in a case after initially not sitting if the issues that prompted that abstention have changed.”

In 2014, HRC launched Project One America, an initiative to advance social, institutional and legal equality in Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas. HRC Alabama continues to work to advance equality for LGBT Alabamians who have no statewide protections in housing, workplace, or public accommodations; and legal state recognition for their relationships and families. Through HRC Alabama, we are working toward a future of fairness every day—changing hearts, minds and laws toward achieving full equality.

www.hrc.org/blog/al-supreme-court-dismisses-lawsuits-challenging-marriage-equality?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss-feed

Debate Recap: Cruz, Trump and Kasich Double Down on Anti-LGBT Rhetoric

Today, HRC responded to the GOP debate in Detroit Michigan, where candidates John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump doubled down on a variety of anti-LGBT positions.

Cruz, Trump and Kasich advocated for religious refusal bills that would allow businesses to discriminate and deny service to LGBT people, and reiterated their opposition to the landmark marriage equality ruling by the Supreme Court last June. These positions put them out of touch with a broad majority of Americans who both oppose such legislation and support the right of committed, loving same-sex couples to marry.

In response to a question from Fox News moderator Brett Baier, John Kasich affirmed his opposition to last year’s Supreme Court ruling establishing nationwide marriage equality and called it “common sense” that a business should be able to discriminate against and deny service to a same-sex couple for religious reasons and suggested such a couple should find another business. This marks a reversal from Kasich’s position in the last debate where he said, “f you’re in the business of selling things, if you’re not going to sell to somebody you don’t agree with, today I’m not going to sell to somebody who’s gay, then tomorrow maybe I won’t sell to somebody who’s divorced.”

Senator Ted Cruz not only doubled down on his support for bills that would allow businesses to deny service to LGBT people for religious reasons, he also suggested he would allow states the ability to deny qualified same-sex couples the ability to adopt children. When asked, Donald Trump then said he agreed with Cruz’s answer on religious liberty and agreed that when it comes to opposing nationwide marriage equality and adoption, “I would certainly have rather left it to the states.”

“Freedom of religion is important, which is why it is already protected by the First Amendment. John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump embraced a future last night where LGBT people all across the country are discriminated and denied service at a business because of who they are or who they love,” said HRC Senior Vice President of Policy and Political Affairs JoDee Winterhof. “Mike Pence and others who have gone down this road have have faced a fierce backlash from their own voters and the business community, who believe that everyone, including LGBT people, should be able to live free from fear of discrimination. It’s unfortunate that so many candidates on the stage last night missed that lesson.”

Allowing businesses to refuse service to LGBT people for religious reasons puts the candidates out of step with a strong majority of Americans. Polling released by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute last week involving more than 42,000 interviews in all 50 states found little support for so-called “religious refusal” bills that would allow a small business owner to deny service to LGBT people for religious reasons. Only 35 percent supported such a bill while 59 percent opposed.  In fact, a majority of residents in the home states of the four candidates oppose such legislation.

Marco Rubio was curiously silent during the exchange on religious refusals despite his history of support for the issue. Just this week he was endorsed by the founder of Hobby Lobby — the company at the center of a Supreme Court ruling that allows some private businesses to deny insurance coverage of birth control because of their personal religious beliefs, a case that set a troubling precedent that could have profound impacts on access to appropriate healthcare for the LGBT community.

Rubio (along with Trump and Cruz) have also expressed support for the so-called “First Amendment Defense Act,” (FADA) which would enable more Kim Davis-like discrimination. For example, under FADA, an employee at the Department of Veterans Affairs could refuse to process a claim for survivor benefits for the same-sex spouse of a servicemember.

An overwhelming 68 percent of Americans oppose such a bill, polling conducted by GQR for HRC has found.

www.hrc.org/blog/debate-recap-cruz-trump-and-kasich-double-down-on-anti-lgbt-positions?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss-feed

HRC Joins Economist Panel on How Businesses Can Promote LGBT Inclusion at Home and Abroad

Yesterday, HRC President Chad Griffin joined NYU Law Professor Kenji Yoshino and Marriott International President Arne Sorenson in New York City at the Economist Pride and Prejudice event.

Together, they discussed how businesses are putting forth ethical models for LGBT inclusion at home and abroad and how these models can influence governments. Businesses across the country are stepping out of the boardroom and into the public square, as we’ve seen across the globe with companies like Marriott and the World Bank speaking out against anti-LGBT bills and practices, limiting their businesses in these areas as a way to influence governments to do right by their LGBT citizens.

For the first time ever, HRC’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI), which measures LGBT workplace inclusion, assessed multinational companies on how they treat their LGBT employees around the world–not just those in the U.S. The business case for LGBT inclusion has strong momentum, spurred by U.S.-based multinationals across the Fortune 500, a majority of which offers explicit protections on the basis of sexual orientation (93 percent) and gender identity (75 percent). 

Additionally, in 2015 HRC announced the creation of a groundbreaking global coalition committed to advancing LGBT workplace equality around the world.  

Watch the video below to see what the panelists had to say and learn more about the event here.

www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-joins-economist-panel-on-how-businesses-can-promote-lgbt-inclusion-at-h?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss-feed