11th Circuit: Title VII Does Not Bar Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, (11th Cir., March 10, 2017), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil rights Act does not protect against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Jude Martinez, in his majority opinion, held:

Our binding precedent forecloses such an action. Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979)4 (“Discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII . . . .”). “Under our prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a binding precedent in this Circuit unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.”

Judge Pryor concurring wrote in part:

I write separately to explain the error of the argument of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the dissent that a person who experiences discrimination because of sexual orientation necessarily experiences discrimination for deviating from gender stereotypes.  Although a person who experiences the former will sometimes also experience the latter, the two concepts are legally distinct. And the insistence otherwise by the Commission and the dissent relies on false stereotypes of gay individuals.

Judge Rosenbaum, dissenting in part, wrote:

Plain and simple, when a woman alleges, as Evans has, that she has been discriminated against because she is a lesbian, she necessarily alleges that she has been discriminated against because she failed to conform to the employer’s image of what women should be—specifically, that women should be sexually attracted to men only. And it is utter fiction to suggest that she was not discriminated against for failing to comport with her employer’s stereotyped view of women. That is discrimination “because of . . . sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and it clearly violates Title VII under Price Waterhouse [v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)].

Atlanta Journal Constitution reports on the decision.

Suit Says City Misled Public About Scope of Ordinance Adding LGBT Protections

Liberty Counsel announced yesterday that it has filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of recent amendments to the Jacksonville, Florida Human Rights Ordinance.  The complaint (full text) in Parsons v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 3/1/2017), alleges that amendments adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the "protected categories" in the Jacksonville's existing nondiscrimination laws were improperly adopted.  Florida state law provides:

No ordinance shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Ordinances to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act or section or subsection or paragraph of a section or subsection.

The new lawsuit contends that the amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance failed to set out the provisions that were being amended, and charges that "the violations result from the intentional omission of plain and obvious legal requirements, by the ordinance authors and sponsors, to deceive the Jacksonville public, City Council, and Mayor as to the true contents and scope of the HRO."

2nd Circuit Hears Arguments In Title VII Sexual Orientation Case

As reported by New York Law Journal, on Friday the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group (audio of full oral arguments).  At issue was whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The district court in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc., (SD NY, March 9, 2016), relying on earlier 2nd Circuit precedent, held that Title VII does not bar discrimination on the basis of of sexual orientation.

Liability of B&B Upheld For Refusing To Host Same-Sex Ceremony

A 3-member panel of the Illinois Human Rights Commission has adopted a hearing examiner's recommendations (see prior posting) and ruled against a bed-and-breakfast that refused to host a same-sex civil union ceremony.  In Wathen v. Walder Vocuflo, Inc., (IL HRC, Nov. 18, 2016), the commission accepted the recommended damages of $30,000 for emotional distress as well as $51,218 in attorneys' fees and costs. In a press release announcing the decision, the Illinois ACLU said in part:

The Commission’s decision once again sends a clear message that denying couples the use of a public wedding venue in Illinois because they are gay or lesbian is simply not permitted. Business owners cannot pick-and-choose to follow laws simply because they personally disagree with same-sex couples’ decision to marry.

According to the Chicago Tribune, attorneys for the bed-and-breakfast say they will seek review from the full Commission and, if necessary, by the Illinois Court of Appeals.

Suit Challenging Indiana Anti-Discrimination Laws Moves Ahead

As reported by the Indianapolis Star, an Indiana state trial court judge is allowing a lawsuit filed by three conservative advocacy organizations to move ahead.  The suit challenges laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The organizations assert that the laws infringe on their free exercise rights. The suit challenges the ordinances of four Indiana cities as well as the so-called "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that prevents using RFRA to discriminate. The order (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Nov. 16, 2016), however, requires plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding the state of Indiana as a party. In a statement (press release), plaintiffs' counsel said:

Plaintiffs currently stand stripped of the heightened legal protection provided under RFRA and must host speakers and hire employees who advocate for same-sex marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. We believe in the constitutionally protected free-exercise of religion that affects people who advocate for traditional marriage, just as it protects all other religious beliefs.

Court Holds Title VII Applies To Sexual Orientation Discrmination

In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Scott Medical Health Center, (WD PA, Nov. 4, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that Title VII's ban on discrimination because of sex prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The court said in part:

That someone can be subjected to a barrage of insults, humiliation, hostility and/or changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, based upon nothing more than the aggressor’s view of what it means to be a man or a woman, is exactly the evil Title VII was designed to eradicate. Because this Court concludes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a subset of sexual stereotyping and thus covered by Title VII’s prohibitions on discrimination “because of sex"....

An EEOC press release discusses the decision.

ALJ Recommends Damages Against B&B That Rejected Civil Union Ceremony

In Wathen v. Walder Vacuflo, Inc., (IL Hum. Rts. Commn., March 22, 2016), an Illinois Human Rights Commission Administrative Law Judge-- after a recommended finding of liability entered last September-- recommended imposing damages of $30,000 for emotional distress arising out of a bed-and-breakfast's refusal to host a same-sex civil union ceremony, as well as $51,218 in attorneys' fees and costs.  The ALJ also recommended issuance of a cease-and-desist order and an order requiring Timber Creek Bed-and-Breakfast to host a celebration ceremony for complainants at 2011 rates. Reporting on the decision, WAND News published a statement from the B&B owner, who said in part:

We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God’s Word and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for Biblical truth. 

Georgia Legislature Passes Wide-Ranging Religious Freedom Bill

As reported by CNN, the Georgia General Assembly yesterday passed HB 757 (full text), the Free Exercise Protection Act. It contains wide-ranging religious freedom protections:

1. The bill protects clergy from any civil suit or tax penalty for performing or refusing to perform any marriage or other religious rite. It also provides that any individual is free to attend or not attend any marriage ceremony or other religious rite.
   
   
2. The bill prohibits local governments from requiring any business to operate on Saturday or Sunday.
   
   
3. The bill provides that churches and religiously affiliated organizations are not required to rent space to another person for an event that is objectionable to the religious organization. Also such organizations are not required to provide social, educational or charitable services that violate the organization's sincerely held religious beliefs.
   
   
4. The bill provides that no faith-based organization is required to hire or retain as an employee any person whose religious beliefs or practices (or lack of either) are not in accord with the organization's sincerely held religious belief.
   
   
5. The bill enacts RFRA language. The government may not substantially burden a person's religious exercise, except in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest that is furthered by the least restrictive means.  This provision, however is limited by several exceptions, including a provision that the RFRA language shall not be construed to "permit invidious discrimination on any grounds prohibited by federal or state law." It should be noted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity are not prohibited by Georgia law, or by federal law as traditionally interpreted.
   
   
6. The bill waives sovereign immunity for suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief or reasonable attorney's fees in various suits against the state under the statute.

Gov. Nathan Deal has said that he will veto any bill that allows discrimination in order to protect people of faith. (See prior posting.)  It is unclear whether the non-discrimination language included in HB 757 is sufficient to overcome the governor's objections.

Groups Question Walgreen's Project With Catholic Health Care Clinics

On Monday, a group of 19 advocacy organizations sent a letter (full text) to Walgreen Co. questioning the announced plans of Walgreen to partner with a Catholic health care system in opening clinics in 25 Walgreen's drug stores in Washington and Oregon. The letter, signed by groups such as the ACLU, Lambda Legal, NARAL and Planned Parenthood affiliates, said in part:

We appreciate Walgreens’s objective to provide customers with convenient access to basic health services. However, as Providence is a religious health system, we are very concerned that these clinics will limit patients’ access to important health services. Customers or patients who request services at these clinics or at Walgreens’s pharmacies are entitled to assurances that the services, information, and referrals they receive will not be restricted by religious doctrine.

As you are likely aware, Providence is a Catholic health care system that is required to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives (“ERDs”) promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. These directives forbid or severely restrict critical reproductive and end-of-life health care services at Catholic health facilities, including contraception, abortions, fertility treatments, vasectomies, tubal ligations, aid in dying,  and advance directives that are contrary to Catholic teachings. Some religious health systems also restrict the information and referrals that their health providers are allowed to give to patients. Adherence to the ERDs also increases the likelihood that LGBTQ individuals and their families will face discrimination in seeking to access health care services consistent with their medical needs.

Think Progress reported on the letter.

Northern Ireland Court Says Bakery Violated Anti-Discrimination Laws In Refusing Cake Promoting Gay Marriage

As reported by the New York Times,  yesterday in a widely followed case a court in Northern Ireland held that owners of a Belfast bakery chain illegally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation when they refused on religious grounds to provide a customer with a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie and the inscription "Support gay marriage."  In Lee v. Ashers Baking Co. Ltd, (County Ct. N. Ireland, May 19, 2015), the court said:

Much as I acknowledge fully their religious belief is that gay marriage is sinful, they are in a business supplying services to all, however constituted.  The law requires them to do just that...

The court observed that a different result "would allow a religious belief to dictate what the law is."  The widely followed case grew out of a cake order placed by a gay man who planned to attend a private event marking the end of Northern Ireland anti-homophobia week.

Australian Court Says Polyamory Is Not "Sexual Orientation" Under Sex Discrimination Act

In Bunning v Centacare, (FCCA, Feb. 11, 2015), an Australian Federal Circuit Court judge dismissed a sexual orientation discrimination complaint filed against a Catholic social service agency by former employee Susan Bunning.  Bunning had worked most recently as the agency's Coordinator of Family Support, but was dismissed after it became known that she led a polyamorous lifestyle. She sued under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.  The court held that plaintiff has no cause of action because polyamory-- the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved-- is sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Financial Review reports on the decision.

Pediatrician, "After Much Prayer," Refuses To Treat Lesbian Couple's Infant

The Detroit Free Press yesterday reported on a new arena for religious objections to providing services to same-sex couples.  A suburban Detroit lesbian couple were told by a pediatrician that they had chosen that "after much prayer" she decided that she could not provide medical services to their newborn.  The news was given to the couple by a different staff physician as the mothers sat in the exam room waiting for their newborn's first checkup. The two mothers had previously met with Dr. Venesa Roi and chosen her particularly because of her holistic approach to treating children.  In a subsequent letter to the couple, Roi told them she was sorry that her decision hurt them, but she decided she could not develop the proper personal doctor-patient relationship with them.  She added that they were always welcome in the office to be seen by another physician on staff.  Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act does not ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, though the ethics rules of the AMA and American Academy of Pediatrics do.

Catholic and Conservative Christian Groups Urge Congressional Disapproval of Two D.C. Ordinances

Under Title VI of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Congress may disapprove laws enacted by the D.C. City Council.  Last week, fifteen Catholic and conservative Christian organizations sent a letter (full text) to members of Congress urging disapproval of two recently enacted D.C. laws-- the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 and Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 (see prior posting). According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops press release:

The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 prevents religious institutions, faith-based employers, and pro-life advocacy organizations in the city from making employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about the sanctity of human life.  

For example, the law requires “organizations to hire or retain individuals whose speech or public conduct contradicts the organizations’ missions,” the letter stated. “The law plainly violates the First Amendment, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), and possibly other federal laws and clearly contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC.”  

Another law enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia, the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, requires religiously affiliated educational institutions to endorse, sponsor, and provide school resources to persons or groups that oppose the institutions’ religious teachings regarding human sexuality. 

“In doing so, the law violates the First Amendment and RFRA on similar grounds”....

California Judicial Ethics Code Changed To Bar Judges From Membership In Boy Scouts

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, on Wednesday, the California Supreme Court approved a recommendation of an ethics advisory committee to strengthen the prohibition in California Code of Judicial Ethics, Sec. 2.C. that prohibits judges from holding membership in any organization that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Previous exceptions for membership in military organizations or nonprofit youth organizations (such as the Boy Scouts) were eliminated in the recently approved change. However an exception for membership in discriminatory religious organizations remains in the Code. Here is the full text of the ethics code as amended.

Court Denies Motions To Dismiss Suits In Shop's Refusal To Sell Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding

AP reports that a Washington state trial court judge yesterday denied two motions to dismiss in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers in which the state and individual plaintiffs are suing over a flower shop's refusal to sell floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. (See prior posting.)  One motion (full text) contended that the state attorney general lacked authority to bring a Consumer Protection Act case without the discrimination charges first going through the state Human Rights Commission administratively.  The second motion (full text) that was denied contended that the owner-officer of the incorporated flower shop could not be held liable personally. Additional motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are still pending. ADF has links to other pleadings in the case.

D.C. Repeals Sexual Orientation Discrimination Exemption For Private Religious Schools

On Dec. 2, the District of Columbia City Council passed (vote history) B20-803 (full text) which repeals the religious educational institution exemption to certain provisions of the D.C. Human Rights Act.  The new law repeals D.C. Code Sec.2-1402.41(3) which read:

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of the laws of the District of Columbia, it shall not be an unlawful discriminatory practice in the District of Columbia for any educational institution that is affiliated with a religious organization or closely associated with the tenets of a religious organization to deny, restrict, abridge, or condition -

(A) The use of any fund, service, facility, or benefit; or

(B) The granting of any endorsement, approval, or recognition, to any person or persons that are organized for, or engaged in, promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.

Conservative Christian organizations opposed the bill, as reflected by this letter from Liberty Counsel.

Kentucky City Passes Ordinance Barring LGBT Discrimination, But With Broad Exemption For Faith-Based Institutions

According to Central Kentucky News, on Monday night, the Danville, Kentucky City Commission, by a vote of 4-1, adopted an ordinance barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but with a broad exclusion for all "faith-based institutions."  An earlier version of the ordinance would not have excluded faith-based institutions that receive a majority of their funding from government agencies.  However last month after Sunrise Children's Services which receives 80% of its funding from the government threatened to sue, Council came up with the new draft containing the broader exemption.  An attempt to go back to the initial version was defeated on Monday by a vote of 3-2.  Mayor Bernie Hunstad, who voted against the final version as well, said that he objects to special protection for individuals "who chose to make an unconventional choice in their method of sexual practices."

Georgian Orthodox Patriarch Objects To Proposed Anti-Discrimination Law That Includes Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The nation of Georgia has entered a Visa Liberalization Action Plan which envisions a number of reforms in order for the country to obtain visa-free status in the European Union.  As reported by Civl.ge, one of those reforms involves adoption of anti-discrimination legislation. Parliament passed the bill on its first reading on April 17. It is coming up this week for its second reading.  Yesterday Georgian Orthodox Church Patriarch Ilia II issued a statement objecting to the inclusion in the bill of sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited grounds for discrimination. The statement, asking the government to delay action on the bill, says in part:

Proceeding from God’s commandments, believers consider non-traditional sexual relations to be a deadly sin, and rightly so, and the anti-discrimination bill in its present form is considered to be a propaganda and legalization of this sin.

Australian Court Says Christian Camp Illegally Discriminated On Basis of Sexual Orientation

In Christian Youth Camps Ltd. v. Cobaw Community Health Service Ltd., (Vict. App., April 16, 2014), the Court of Appeal of the Australian state of Victoria, in a 2-1 decision, held that a Christian youth camp unlawfully discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation when it refused to rent out its camp for a weekend to an organization whose goals were to prevent suicide among "same-sex attracted young people."  The majority held that neither of the two religious freedom exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 apply. The exemption in Sec. 75(2) does not apply because the camp is not "a body established for religious purposes." The exemption in Section 77 (prior to its amendment in 2010) for conduct "necessary ... to comply with the person's genuine religious beliefs or principles" should be read as covering only individuals, and not corporations.

Justice Redlich dissented, arguing that the exemption in Section 77 is available to corporations, and that in addition corporations may claim the exemption when it is validly claimed by an agent of the corporation who acted for it. Christian Today reports on the decision.

Guesthouse Owners In Britain Going To European Court In Try To Limit Double Rooms To Married Couples

In Britain, the Christian Legal Centre announced today that Jeff and Sue Green, the owners of a guesthouse in Wales, are applying directly to the European Court of Human Rights to obtain a ruling that would allow them to reflect their Christian beliefs by renting double rooms only to married couples.  The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) challenged the owners' policy, informing them that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  EHRC dropped the case when the Greens agreed to offer only single beds in all rooms. However the Greens are continuing to pursue their case. They are not first going through the British courts because last year's UK Supreme Court opinion in Bull v. Hall (see prior posting) indicates that it would be fruitless to do so. The Telegraph has additional details.