Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: November 9, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comEmployers are likely getting whiplash in the wake of the Trump Administration’s frequent reversals of many Obama-era workplace rules and policies. Most recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit employment discrimination against transgender persons.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate in the employment of an individual “because of such individual’s … sex.” Because the federal anti-discrimination law does not elaborate, questions have arisen concerning the appropriate legal standard for establishing claims of gender identity discrimination, including discrimination claims brought by gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals.
In 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder issued landmark guidance stating that the Department of Justice had “determined that the best reading of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status.” President Obama also issued an Executive Order establishing that discrimination based on gender identity is prohibited for purposes
of federal employment and government contracting.
Earlier this month, Attorney General Sessions reversed course. “Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status,” Sessions wrote in a memo to U.S. attorneys and federal agency leaders.
The memo states that the new policy will take effect in all pending and future litigation and enforcement matters, except where controlling lower court precedent dictates otherwise. It also advises that the DOJ’s revised position should not be “construed to condone mistreatment on the basis of gender identity, or to express a policy view on whether Congress should amend Title VII to provide different or additional protections.”
The DOJ’s position contradicts the position adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As we have previously discussed in prior articles, the EEOC has taken the position that existing sex discrimination provisions in Title VII protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workers against employment discrimination. Among other rationales, the agency argues that “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex” and, therefore, “allegations of sexual orientation discrimination involve sex-based considerations.”
The new DOJ policy on gender identity discrimination is also at odds with federal court decisions. In April, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination extends to gender identity. “Any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant — woman or man — dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates or marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex,” Judge Diane Wood wrote. “That means that it falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination if it affects employment in one of the specified ways.”
In September, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Zarda v. Altitude Express. The estate of Donald Zarda is continuing the Title VII discrimination suit of deceased gay skydiving instructor who alleged he was fired after disclosing his sexual orientation. With several other federal cases pending, the issue could soon be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In New Jersey, the Law Against Discrimination includes “gender identity and expression” as a protected class. Accordingly, any discrimination and/or retaliation against transgender workers would be proper grounds for an employment lawsuit under state law.
Therefore, even though transgender workplace may not be actionable under federal law, New Jersey employers are advised to not only implement a written employment policy against sex-based discrimination but also ensure that it is strictly enforced. As with other employment policies, that means providing training to all managers and developing procedures to verify that all complaints are thoroughly investigated.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Sean Dias, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Employers are likely getting whiplash in the wake of the Trump Administration’s frequent reversals of many Obama-era workplace rules and policies. Most recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit employment discrimination against transgender persons.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate in the employment of an individual “because of such individual’s … sex.” Because the federal anti-discrimination law does not elaborate, questions have arisen concerning the appropriate legal standard for establishing claims of gender identity discrimination, including discrimination claims brought by gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals.
In 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder issued landmark guidance stating that the Department of Justice had “determined that the best reading of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status.” President Obama also issued an Executive Order establishing that discrimination based on gender identity is prohibited for purposes
of federal employment and government contracting.
Earlier this month, Attorney General Sessions reversed course. “Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status,” Sessions wrote in a memo to U.S. attorneys and federal agency leaders.
The memo states that the new policy will take effect in all pending and future litigation and enforcement matters, except where controlling lower court precedent dictates otherwise. It also advises that the DOJ’s revised position should not be “construed to condone mistreatment on the basis of gender identity, or to express a policy view on whether Congress should amend Title VII to provide different or additional protections.”
The DOJ’s position contradicts the position adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As we have previously discussed in prior articles, the EEOC has taken the position that existing sex discrimination provisions in Title VII protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workers against employment discrimination. Among other rationales, the agency argues that “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex” and, therefore, “allegations of sexual orientation discrimination involve sex-based considerations.”
The new DOJ policy on gender identity discrimination is also at odds with federal court decisions. In April, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination extends to gender identity. “Any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant — woman or man — dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates or marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex,” Judge Diane Wood wrote. “That means that it falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination if it affects employment in one of the specified ways.”
In September, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Zarda v. Altitude Express. The estate of Donald Zarda is continuing the Title VII discrimination suit of deceased gay skydiving instructor who alleged he was fired after disclosing his sexual orientation. With several other federal cases pending, the issue could soon be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In New Jersey, the Law Against Discrimination includes “gender identity and expression” as a protected class. Accordingly, any discrimination and/or retaliation against transgender workers would be proper grounds for an employment lawsuit under state law.
Therefore, even though transgender workplace may not be actionable under federal law, New Jersey employers are advised to not only implement a written employment policy against sex-based discrimination but also ensure that it is strictly enforced. As with other employment policies, that means providing training to all managers and developing procedures to verify that all complaints are thoroughly investigated.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Sean Dias, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!