A jury in Maine found that Express Jet Airlines violated Maine’s Human Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and awarded a former employee, Edward Russell, $1 million in damages. According to his complaint, Russell was qualified for a vacant general manager position and had even temporarily held the position several times, but the airline instead hired a manager one executive described as a “real man.”

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating LGBT discrimination claims. For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On July 8, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in the case of Gill v. OPM that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection principles embodied in Fifth Amendment.  Judge Joseph Tauro stated, “. . . the Constitution will not tolerate government reliance ‘on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.’”  DOMA prohibits same-sex married couples from fully utilizing their federal benefits including health insurance, dental and vision insurance, flexible spending accounts, social security benefits, retirement benefits, and the “married” filing status under the IRS.  Click here for the full opinion.

In a companion case, Massachusetts v. DHHS, the same court held DOMA unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, stating that marriage was and is an institution traditionally left to the states to define, not the federal government.  Click here for the companion case’s full opinion.

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating LGBT discrimination claims.  For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On July 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Georgia issued a judgment declaring that employees are protected from discrimination for not conforming to gender stereotypes.  Judge Richard Story granted summary judgment in the case of Glenn v. Brumby, stating that transgendered individuals are protected from employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment.  Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  The plaintiff, Glenn, was an employee of the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC) when she informed her boss that she would begin dressing as a woman instead of a man.  Upon learning of her decision, the OLC fired her.

Judge Story stated, “[w]hile transsexuals are not members of a protected class based on sex, those who do not conform to gender stereotypes are members of a protected class based on sex.”  Transsexuals are individuals who identify with the opposite gender, while transgendered individuals are those who do not conform to gender norms or stereotypes.  The Court further elaborated that everyone, including transsexuals, is protected from employment discrimination for not acting or appearing “manly enough” or “feminine enough,” regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identification.  Click here for the full opinion.

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating LGBT discrimination claims.  For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued an official interpretation expanding the definition of “son or daughter” to include children in non-traditional families under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The FMLA provides that an employee may take up to twelve weeks of leave to care for a newborn, adopted son or daughter, or son or daughter with a serious health condition.  The DOL’s newly issued interpretation clarifies that “son or daughter” means virtually any child where the employee assumes the obligations of a parent without any formal declaration.  According to the Department of Labor, this interpretation “sends a clear message to workers and employers alike:  All families, including LGBT families, are protected by the FMLA.” Click here for the official DOL interpretation.

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating FMLA based claims.  For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On February 1, 2010, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Erik Christian denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Altan v. IK Retail Group.  The defendants sought dismissal of Mr. Altan’s claims which include allegations of sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation.  The defendants argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and that Mr. Altan had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

In siding with Mr. Altan, the court noted that the laws of the District and Maryland are substantially similar in this area and Maryland law grants venue both where the prohibited actions took place and the location where the decision was made to engage in the unlawful acts.  The court then proceeded to examine both public and private interest factors.  Observing that “the case involves a Defendant who is headquartered in the District of Columbia, and a substantial amount of the alleged discrimination against [the] Plaintiff originated in the District of Columbia,” the court found that it had the authority hear the matter and was unconvinced that there were any burdens sufficient to disturb Mr. Altan’s choice of forum.  

In analyzing defendants’ argument that Mr. Altan failed to state a valid claim, the court was clearly moved by the egregious facts alleged in Mr. Altan’s complaint, and found that it was certainly possible for Mr. Altan “to prove a set of facts which would entitle him to relief.”  A copy of the order is available here.

For more information on The Employment Law Group® law firm and its Sexual Orientation Discrimination Practice, click here.

On August 28, 2009, the Third Circuit issued a ruling in Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc., which clearly states that an employee can bring a claim of gender stereotyping sex discrimination under Title VII.  The case was initiated by Brian Prowel who alleged that his employer harassed him and terminated his employment because of his gender.  According to the complaint, Prowel was subjected to multiple instances of harassment, including being called “Princess” and “Rosebud” because he did not fit in with the other men at Wise, i.e., his effeminate mannerisms did not conform to those of the “stereotypical male.” 

Finding that the examples of harassment that Prowel cited in his complaint were all examples of discrimination based on sexual orientation, the district court granted summary judgment for Wise.  The Third Circuit reversed however, concluding that Prowel may have been harassed because of his failure to conform to gender stereotypes and not only because of his sexual orientation.  According to the court, “[t]here is no basis in the statutory or case law to support the notion that an effeminate heterosexual man can bring a gender stereotyping claim while an effeminate homosexual man may not.” Accordingly, “as long as the employee…marshals sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude that harassment or discrimination occurred because of sex, the case is not appropriate for summary judgment.” 

This ruling is a significant victory for gay and lesbian employees because it affirms the notion that all employees, regardless of sexual orientation, can bring a discrimination claim under Title VII based on a theory of gender stereotyping.  For information on The Employment Law Group® Law Firm’s LGBT Discrimination Practice, click here.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) has reintroduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the form of H.R. 2981.  The bill, which was introduced in the House on June 19, 2009, would include protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals in the workplace.  In particular, the bill would provide a comprehensive federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  Examples of prohibited conduct would include:  (1) refusing to hire an individual because of an actual or perceived sexual orientation and (2) discharging an employee because of an actual or perceived sexual orientation.  The bill would also make it illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee who opposes any discriminatory practice under the Act. 
 
A similar version of the bill passed the House in the previous session of Congress. Currently 12 states and the District of Columbia ban job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s LGBT Discrimination Practice, click here.

A recent survey released by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) reveals that the majority of Americans favor strengthening legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens.  According to the survey, 75% of U.S. adults support domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples while only 22% percent say gay and lesbian couples should have no legal recognition.  Other key findings of the survey include:

• Almost two-thirds of U.S. adults favor allowing openly gay military personnel to serve in the armed forces
• Sixty-three percent of U.S. adults favor expanding hate crime laws to provide protection for all LGBT individuals
• U.S. adults are evenly split on the issue of whether gay and lesbian couples can legally marry
• Sixty-nine percent of U.S. adults oppose laws that ban qualified gay and lesbian couples from adopting children

In general, the survey demonstrates a greater acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans in today’s society.  The Employment Law Group® law firm is committed to advancing civil rights and fighting discrimination.  For more information about LGBT rights and The Employment Law Group® law firm’s LGBT Discrimination Practice, click here.

On Saturday, November 15, 2008, members and supporters of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer communities will protest Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California.  The protest for equal rights will take place at the same time across the nation.  For more information about the national demonstration including local times and protest locations, go to http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/.  The protest in the District of Columbia will take place at 1:30 PM Eastern Standard Time at the U.S. Capitol Reflecting Pool, 100 Constitution Ave. N.E. Washington, DC 20002. 

The Employment Law Group® law firm, a leading civil rights firm, is committed to advancing civil rights and combating discrimination.  For information about our LGBT Discrimination Practice Area, click here.

On Saturday, September 27, 2008, Principal R. Scott Oswald of The Employment Law Group® law firm spoke to prospective LGBT college graduates at a program titled, “Knowing Your Legal Rights.”  The program, which was hosted by Out for Work, provided an overview of protections available to LGBT individuals who experience sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.  In particular, the program focused on theories of protection against sexual orientation discrimination, including:

• Gender Discrimination
• Association Discrimination
• Religious Discrimination
• Disability Discrimination
• Gender Stereotyping

Mr. Oswald also offered practical tips on how to choose an employer, i.e. conducting internet research, reviewing an employer’s employee handbook, and interviewing current employees.  To view the full presentation, click here. 

The Employment Law Group® law firm represents employees who experience discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  For more information about LGBT discrimination litigation, click here.