Articles Tagged with LGBTQ discrimination

by

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in three cases alleging LGBTQ workplace discrimination. In an amicus brief (documents filed in appellate matters by non-litigants – or amicus curiae – with a strong interest in the stakes), some of the biggest U.S. companies urged the court to rule that federal civil rights law protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning workers. LGBTQ discrimination lawyer Los Angeles

In their brief, more than 200 companies in all argued that their own corporate anti-discrimination policies cannot serve as an adequate substitute to the law. It is the position of these companies – among them Amazon, Bank of America, Microsoft, Starbucks and Walt Disney – that LGBTQ workers have inherent protections under existing federal rights law.

Most argue this in the context of gender discrimination, but the problem is is no express terminology from the legislature opining these rights exist in U.S. law. That has resulted in courts in different jurisdictions reaching inconsistent conclusions. Continue reading

by

California is known for its progressive stances on a myriad of issues, including civil rights of LGBTQ individuals. That doesn’t mean they don’t face down discrimination at work or everyday life. What it does mean, though, is that workers LGBTQ workers can successfully fight back on such injustices, a goal to which our LGBTQ employment discrimination attorneys in Los Angeles are committed. Los Angeles LGBTQ Discrimination Attorney

Recently in Hesperia, a teacher was awarded a significant financial settlement after she was allegedly retaliated against with termination for helping LGBTQ students blow the whistle on their mistreatment by school administrators. The former high school English teacher was awarded an $850,000 settlement – and a promise to improve school policies.

The case was filed in 2015, when the ACLU of Southern California contacted the district with allegations of a hostile learning environment for gay and lesbian students. The district has since agreed to review and alter its policies, mandating administrators and staff undergo training on discrimination and clarifying its anti-discrimination procedures and policies. Continue reading

by

Imagine not being able to put a photo of your family on your desk. Think about what you would do if you couldn’t talk aboutsexual orientation rights simple weekend plans with co-workers. What would you do if you couldn’t even mention the name of your significant other? This is the reality for almost half of LGBTQ employees nationwide, according to a Human Rights Campaign report. A survey of workers of all sexual orientations found that of those who identified at LGBTQ, 46 percent still hide their orientation at work, a number that has remained about the same over the past 10 years. A Human Rights Campaign Report from 2008 tallied 50 percent of LGBTQ respondents as being closeted in the workplace.

Further data collected from those who identified as LGBTQ paints a pretty clear picture as to why many still hide their private lives. About 20 percent said they were told to dress in a way that was more aligned with their perceived gender. Over 50 percent said they had heard jokes about homosexuality at work at least once in while. These stats likely have contributed to the next data point: 31 percent report feeling depressed or unhappy in the workplace. Continue reading

by

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title VII, which means it’s now in the hands of Congress to take action to change existing law if LGBTQ employees are going to be allowed the right to sue. The other alternative would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to take on this case or one similar and decide differently. sadness

In the Indian case of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the court noted that this was not the first time it had been asked to consider whether Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields workers and provides an avenue for dispute resolution (usually stemming from claims of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community). However, the court noted that in this case, the court was deciding the matter “in the shadow of criticism from the EEOC,” which alleged the 7th Circuit and others have continued to reflexively declare sexual orientation is not protected under Title VII/

The court noted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had questioned the court’s acceptance of cases born of gender non-conformity discrimination, even as it rejected sexual orientation discrimination cases. Even in the face of this criticism, however, the federal appeals court held once again that because the claim was solely for discrimination based on sexual orientation, it was beyond the scope of the statute.  Continue reading