This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.
By John V. Berry, Esq.
On October 8, 2019, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments as to whether or not Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 involving sex discrimination applies to LGBT employees.
The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal are currently split on the issue. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will focus on the text of the law, not politics, and do the right thing here. In my opinion, the Civil Rights Act clearly protects LGBT employees from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status. The civil rights law was written broadly and anticipates other forms of sex discrimination.
The Three Cases
The Supreme Court heard three combined cases on the issue during oral argument. They involve 3 employees, two gay males and one transgender female. The two men were fired due to their sexual orientation and the transgender woman was fired from her employment because of her gender identity. A link to the synopsis on Scotusblog can be found here.
Common Sense Should Prevail
As with so many other issues in the law, common sense has been distorted through the various legal arguments. Most individuals know that “sex” discrimination is discrimination based on some aspect of sex. Those opposing the inclusion of LGBT employees from sexual discrimination protections have tried to twist the plain meaning of the statute’s wording by claiming it to be different than it reads.
To some, it could reasonably appear that LGBT employees are attempting to enlarge the definition of a law which was meant to protect women from sex discrimination back in 1964. However, the law was also meant to broadly define sex discrimination, which can happen to anyone, regardless of whether they are straight, LGBTQ or otherwise. Opponents have argued that gender identity, sexual orientation and sex discrimination have multiple different meanings in an effort to confuse the issue.
One of the arguments put forth seems to make the concept clear to me:
The argument before the Court is that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII, because when an employer fires a male employee for dating men, but does not fire a female employee who also dates men, the employer discriminates based on sex.
History of Sex Discrimination Law is Non-Existent
Furthermore, Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination was a last-minute inclusion in the Civil Rights Act that was intended to scuttle the bill by former Congressman Howard Smith from Virginia. Apparently, Congressman Smith elicited laughter from his colleagues when he proposed this addition at the last minute. He must have been shocked when the sex discrimination law passed Congress.
As a result, the definition was left broad, without any hearings and debate to define it. Many courts and the EEOC have concluded that the law was intended to protect LGBT employees. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will do the right thing here. Nobody should be subject to sex discrimination.
A ruling, either way, is probably likely to be 5-4, either way. The swing justice is likely Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has taken the view that the text was clear in that sex discrimination could include these forms of discrimination. If the 3 employees prevail it will likely be because Justice Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh rule with them. However, if the Court rules against LGBT employees, it will only be a matter of time before a future Supreme Court overrules them and the justices that supported this type of discrimination will be remembered poorly.
If you are in need of employment law representation or advice, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or through our contact page to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook or Twitter.
A sign urging drivers to “take a moment” has been placed at the Oakton High School road exit (staff photo by Angela Woolsey) Fairfax County will introduce speed cameras to…
Comcast’s headquarters in Philadelphia (via Mike Conway/Unsplash) Fairfax County is still working through negotiations with Comcast for cable service in Reston. Although discussions are still underway, the Fairfax County Board…
Fairfax County police cruiser with lights on (via FCPD/Facebook) A dog was shot and killed by Fairfax County police during a search of a house in Herndon this morning. Officers…
Fairfax County’s I-66 Transfer Station (via Google Maps) Residents served by Haulin’ Trash, the now-bankrupt private trash collector, will be allowed to use Fairfax County’s waste disposal facilities at no charge…
The Ravel Dance Studio will re-open for fall classes 2020. The school will offer in person and virtual online instruction. With over 5000 sq. ft. to social distance the school has added air ionization filtration systems, ballet barres, acrylic dividers, hands free bathrooms, strict monitoring and more.
The Ravel Dance Studio will produce a Nutcracker Ballet Hollywood style video through the Reston Community CenterStage. REGISTRATION online begins August 17.
Chris Green is one of the DMV’s finest fitness instructors. A Lululemon and South Block ambassador, he is a coach and mentor to so many. He embodies grace, positivity and motivation in ways that no one else can. If we could all learn a thing or two from him, the world would be a much better place. He does so much for others, and does so with a smile on his face 99% of the time.
He recently ruptured his Achilles and has an incredibly long and tough journey ahead. As if COVID hadn’t impacted fitness professionals enough, throw this in the mix and it’s a double, even triple whammy. CG is no longer able to work and do what he loves for the time being because of this and we’d love your support.