Sexual Orientation Discrimination - Explained
How Bostock v Clayton County Provided Protections
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
-
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
What is Sexual Orientation Discrimination?
Sexual orientation or identity discrimination in the employment context means any form of employment discrimination based upon the real or perceived sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual) or identity (transgender association) of an employee.
What are the federal sexual orientation protections?
On June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County. In this case, the court held that discrimination against an employee based upon their sexual orientation is a form of discrimination based upon sex.
Prior to the Bostock decision, there were very few federal protections for discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
There are other common law decisions at the US Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Court levels that associate sexual orientation and sexual identity with sex-based discrimination.
Further, in a federal administrative court case involving a federal employee in 2015, the EEOC determined that sexual orientation (and possibly identity) discrimination is a form of discrimination based upon predispositions about an individual's sex.
The EEOC's opinion effectively extended sexual orientation protection to all federal employees (as well as employees of federal contractors). Federal courts have not yet extended this logic to discrimination actions against private employers.
Note: Numerous states (and the District of Columbia) and a few local governments have laws or ordinances protecting employees against sexual orientation and identity discrimination by public and private employers. Discussion: How do you feel about the absence of federal statutory protections against discrimination based upon sexual orientation or identity? Are there any arguments for or against such protections? Do you see a general trend in society toward or against protection?
Related Topics
- Employment Discrimination (Intro)
- What is Employment Discrimination?
- Glass Ceiling
- What are the major Employment Discrimination laws?
- Civil Rights Act of 1866 (1981 Actions)
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- The Rehabilitation Act
- Job Accommodation Network
- Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Affordable Care Act (ACA)
- Uniform Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Sexual Orientation and Identification
- What is Affirmative Action?
- What is employment discrimination protection under state law?
- Overview of Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- What is employment discrimination under Title VII?
- How are Title VII protections enforced?
- Wrongful Termination Claim
- Disparate Treatment
- Disparate Impact
- What is race discrimination under Title VII?
- What is national origin discrimination under Title VII?
- What is religious discrimination Under Title VII?
- What is sex discrimination under Title VII?
- What is sexual harassment or Hostile work environment under Title VII?
- Quid Pro Quo
- What is pregnancy discrimination under Title VII?
- Equal Pay Act of 1963