Contact Us

January Top Cases of 2018

Three of the 10 most groundbreaking and relevant employment cases for HR professionals so far this year raise issues relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Three more center around Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims.

In a case out of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College), the reach of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was extended to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. An associate professor at a community college who was openly lesbian did not get six jobs she applied for, and her part-time position was not renewed. She claimed she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation. After hearing her case, the 7th Circuit became the first appeals court to rule that Title VII bars sexual orientation discrimination. Lessig said HR needs to tell managers about this case, as it could signal a developing trend.

Another case (Ellingsworth v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.) involved a supervisor who allegedly told an employee repeatedly that she dressed like a lesbian and had tattoos like a lesbian. The supervisor also would ask the employee to show her tattoos to co-workers and then ask them if they thought the tattoos made her look like a lesbian. Eventually the employee, who was heterosexual, went on leave and then resigned, alleging constructive discharge. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff had stated a claim of gender stereotyping in violation of Title VII. The bullying behavior allegedly took place for a year but nobody did anything to stop it, Lessig said. If HR professionals are asked why money is needed for training, Lessig said, “This is why.”

In Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied dismissal of a claim that gender dysphoria—or gender identity disorder—was covered by the ADA. (The case was both an LGBT and ADA case.) Lessig called the ruling the “first of its kind in the country.” The plaintiff in Blatt was fired after six months on the job, allegedly because of gender dysphoria, which the plaintiff asserted was an ADA disability. A major life activity has to be substantially limited for an impairment to be a covered ADA disability. The major life activities in this case included reproduction and social and occupational functioning. This is one area where plaintiffs will try to push the envelope, Lessig predicted.