About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

6 Am. U. Labor & Emp. L.F. [i] (2016)

handle is hein.journals/auniverl6 and id is 1 raw text is: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: HAVE THE FEDERAL COURTS REACHED A CONSENSUS ON HOW TO INTERPRET TITLE VII CLAIMS ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WHO IDENTIFY AS LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, OR TRANSGENDER? By Nicholas Larkin IL Introduction: Discrimination, especially when it occurs in the workplace, is a controversial and complicated subject that society has struggled to overcome for many years.' When workplace discrimination is directed towards those who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT), employment discrimination becomes even more complex.2 Employment discrimination is complex because the federal statute that prohibits discrimination based on sex does not address workplace discrimination against those who identify as LGBT.3 Many within the LGBT community have attempted, with varying levels of success, to use statutes and inventive legal theories to further their suits that allege workplace discrimination.4 For instance, transgender plaintiffs typically argue, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), that employment discrimination occurred because of gender. On the other hand, gay or lesbian plaintiffs typically argue under Title VII that employment discrimination occurred because of their sexual orientation or lack of gender conformity.6 This paper will examine the federal statute most commonly used in LGBT employment-discrimination cases, Title VII, by analyzing and discussing federal case law to determine the current state of employment-discrimination claims made by LGBT individuals. Determining the current state of the law as it pertains to employment discrimination against LGBT individuals requires several steps. Section II will discuss the history of Title VII and the steps Congress took to pass it. Section II will further elaborate on the amendments made 1 See Judy Bennett Garner & Sandy James, Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons, 14 GEO. J. GENDER & L. 363, 365-69 (2013). 2 See Jennifer C. Pizer et al., Evidence ofPersistent and Pervasive Workplace Discrimination Against LGBT People: The Need for Federal Legislation Prohibiting Discrimination and Providing for Equal Employment Benefits, 45 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 715, 728-31 (2012). 3 E.g., Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215, 1221-22 (10th Cir. 2007); Bibby v. Phila. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257, 264-65 (3d Cir. 2001). 4E.g. Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enter., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 874-75 (9th Cir. 2001); Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 259-61 (1st Cir. 1999). See generally 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2000e-17 (2009); E.g., Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 736-38 (6th Cir. 2005); Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653, 657-59 (S.D. Tex. 2008); Garner & James, supra note 1, at 370-71. 6 E.g., Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285, 286-87 (3d Cir. 2009); Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1217 (D. Or. 2002).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most