Tag Archive for: LGBTQ

Employment Protections in Minnesota: What Employees Need to Know in a Changing Landscape

/in ,

The Trump Administration has been direct in its efforts to combat decades-old nondiscrimination standards. But while its actions have created a lot of (justifiable) coverage and outrage, it is important to understand the vast majority of legal protections in employment remain untouched.

Along with nationwide legal actions challenging the recent orders and changes, there are still laws—especially in Minnesota—that protect workers.

  1. Antidiscrimination Protection

Federal contractors have long been required to provide equal employment opportunity. A recent executive order removed that requirement and provided that the Department of Labor’s contract office would no longer promote diversity or affirmative action.

But this does not remove equal employment protection for employees—it only removes that particular requirement for companies to contract with the federal government. The protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) are not changed, and all employers in Minnesota must follow them. It is still unlawful to discriminate based on race, religion, disability, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity in Minnesota.

  1. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Despite some shake-ups within the EEOC, including the dismissal of two of its three Democratic Commissioners, its essential work remains. The EEOC cannot currently issue new rules or policies, because it no longer has enough Commissioners to vote on them.

But you can still file an EEOC charge. Even if the EEOC does not pursue your case, you can still request a Notice of Right to Sue and pursue your claim in court. The same rights in Title VII and the MHRA still protect you, and are being enforced not only by the EEOC but also the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and the courts. You can also file a charge with the MDHR if you have experienced discrimination for virtually the same reasons as with the EEOC.

  1. LGBTQ+ Protection

LGBTQ+ rights are involved in the actions above as well as two other executive orders. The first order specifies that the United States only recognizes two sexes, and explains how its policies will define and apply “male” and “female.” It requires federal agencies and employees to use the approved terminology in all communications and remove any references to gender or gender identity. For example, any government form to be filled out must list sex as male or female, and cannot ask about a person’s gender identity or include any other options, such as non-binary. The second order is about transgender people participating in sports, and applies sex-based distinctions that disregard gender identity.

But these orders have been challenged in court for violating the U.S. Constitution, among other things. And states still have protections that exceed federal protections. Minnesota, in particular, has protections for LGBTQ+ people that remain unchanged by these orders, notably the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has recently expressed that the executive order does not override the MHRA.

Even with the federal policy changes in civil rights protection and enforcement, Minnesota (among other states) has strong laws that still protect your rights. The MHRA is among the most protective laws in the country, and it is unchanged.

Conclusion

If you have questions about employment law in the wake of the Trump administration’s efforts to change legal norms, contact us today to learn more.

SCOTUS Grants Writ of Certiorari for Three LGBT Employment Discrimination Cases

/in

On April 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted petitions for writs of certiorari in three LGBT employment cases. Each of the three cases addresses whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 offers protection against discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Plaintiff, Gerald Lynn Bostock, claims his sexual orientation as a gay man was the reason for his termination from Clayton County as a Child Welfare Services Coordinator. The District Court ruled that he had no viable claim because Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Eleventh Circuit established the precedent that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not a form of sex discrimination protected by Title VII.

In contrast, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII, because the Supreme Court has ruled previously that gender stereotyping violates the statute. The Second Circuit held discrimination based on sexual orientation was an “actionable subset of sex discrimination” because you cannot address sexual orientation without consideration of the individual’s gender and the related stereotypes.

In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, et al., the Sixth Circuit also held that Title VII protects employees who are transgender. Employee Aimee Stephens was terminated when she informed her coworkers that “she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female and intended to dress in appropriate business attire to work as a woman.” Two weeks later she was terminated because the funeral home owner thought he would be “violating God’s commands” by allowing Stephens to dress in women’s clothing. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on Stephens’ behalf, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled for the EEOC and Stephens.

Supreme Court Recognizes Constitutional Right to Marriage Equality

/in , ,

Today, the United States Supreme Court agreed that the Constitution granted the liberty “to define and express their identity” by “marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” The groundbreaking decision, available here, recognized that the personal choice of who to marry is “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy,” a central concept of the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of life, liberty and property. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court, eloquently summed up the matter in his concluding statement:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say that they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The Minnesota Human Rights Act has long recognized the right to equal treatment of individuals regardless of their sexual orientation and sexual identity. It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on the employee’s sexual orientation, self-image, and identity. In fact, recognizing that discriminators often try to stigmatize people based on sexual orientation and identity, Minnesota law also prohibits discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation and identity. And, if an employee complains about sexual orientation discrimination, Minnesota law protects them from retaliation.

For more information about the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling, or employment law protecting the LGBTQ community, please contact us.