Second Circuit Expands Protections for LGBTQ Employees

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  It has been an open question, however, whether "sex" includes sexual orientation.  In 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont), ruled in the case of
Simonton v. Runyon
 that sexual orientation is not protected by Title VII, thus allowing employers to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation.  On February 26, 2008, the Second Circuit changed its mind.  Sitting en banc in the case of 
Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.
, the entire Second Circuit overruled Simonton and found that discrimination based on sexual orientation is, in fact, discrimination based on sex, and thus is prohibited by Title VII.


This is a big win for the LGBTQ community.  While states such as Connecticut have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, most states do not.  By overruling Simonton, the Second Circuit has joined the Seventh Circuit (which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in protecting LGBTQ workers.  Now, for example, a LGBTQ worker in Connecticut not only has the protection of state law, but has the protection of federal law as well.


If you have been the victim of discrimination because of your sexual orientation (or for any other reason), call The Law Offices of Anthony J. Pantuso, III at 203-726-0284.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Supreme Court has Gutted Workers'Rights

Image
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, in the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis , has ruled that employees can be forced, as a condition of employment, to give up their right to sue collectively to remedy wage theft.  This decision is wrong on so many levels, and Congress needs to reverse it. The majority decision, written by Justice Gorsuch, ignores the fundamental right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act  of workers to act collectively to address wage and workplace conditions.  Instead, relying on the same sorts of "penumbras and emanations" of the law that the conservative majority derides when the liberals on the Court expand individual rights, the majority held that the Federal Arbitration Act  somehow trumps the NLRA.  The majority also ignores the fact that, because most individual wage theft claims are small, the only economically viable way to vindicate employee rights is to act collectively. Congress has before it the Arbitration Fairness Act , whi
Read more