A Shield Against The Employer’s Sword—Protection For Workers Who Disclose Their Sexual Orientation

A disturbing common theme in employment discrimination cases, our wrongful termination lawyers in Marion County, Florida have learned, is how employees are targeted for discriminatory harassment or termination after employers discover information about them. For example, employees who disclose their previous unknown disability, pregnancy, or interracial marriage are often targeted for discriminatory abuse and discharge. Similarly, employers who learn about the previously undisclosed sexual orientation of their employees often target them for termination. Likewise, employees who oppose workplace discrimination are often targeted for retaliatory abuse and discharge. In far too many cases, employers’ discriminatory or retaliatory abuse is calculated to make employees’ working conditions so miserable that they will quit. If employees refuse to read the handwriting on the wall and walk away, employers then build a case against them to justify their termination.

In this article, our wrongful termination lawyers in Marion County, Florida explain how the decision in Cherry v. Premier Prints, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-59 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 23, 2022) illustrates the legal protection afforded to employees after an employer learns of their sexual orientation.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In Cherry, an individual named Cherry brought a wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employer, Premier Prints, Inc. (“Premier”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. In reaching its conclusion, the Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII. Cherry, who is a homosexual male, claims that he was laid off because of his sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.

In November 1996, Cherry began working for Premier. During his more than twenty-year employment with the company, Cherry held numerous positions with Premier. In 2004 or 2005, Cherry became both the General Manager and the Sales Manager. In September 2019, Cherry married his husband. Cherry maintains that, before September 2019, none of the Premier employees knew that he was gay and that, once word of his marriage became known throughout the company, everyone “seemed shocked.” Cherry asserts that he was scared to reveal his sexual orientation to anyone at Premier because he knew that one of the owners of the company, Zeke, had a negative opinion of homosexuals.

Cherry alleges that Zeke made homophobic comments throughout Cherry’s employment with Premier. For example, Cherry alleges that Zeke once remarked, “Should I turn queer or get a sex change?” Cherry also alleges that Zeke would take fabric samples and hold them in front of his genitals and say, “Do you like the samples now?” Cherry maintains that after employees learned of his marriage to another man, his fears about Zeke and others learning about his sexual orientation became a reality. Cherry testified that his relationship with Zeke changed dramatically after Zeke learned of his marriage to another man—in particular, Cherry testified that, despite previously having enjoyed a good relationship with Zeke, they almost never communicated from that point forward.

In April 2020, Zeke and another owner advised Cherry that he was being laid off. During the termination meeting, according to Cherry, Zeke told Cherry, “I don’t know you anymore.” Premier alleges that Cherry was laid off because of poor work performance. During his deposition, Zeke claimed that Cherry’s work performance had been “going down” for seven years. Zeke, however, admitted that Premier did not have any documentary evidence regarding Cherry’s allegedly poor work performance. Cherry was never rehired by Premier. Cherry maintains that he was replaced by a heterosexual man.

Link Between Disclosure & Termination

Premier filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Cherry’s wrongful termination claim. In support of its motion for dismissal, Premier argued that the evidence established that the layoff decision was based solely on Cherry’s work performance issues and not his sexual orientation. In denying Premier’s motion for dismissal, the trial court concluded that Cherry was entitled to proceed to a jury trial because his evidence was sufficient to establish that he was laid off because of his sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.

In denying Premier’s motion for dismissal, the trial court focused on the suspicious timing surrounding Premier’s discovery of Cherry’s sexual orientation and Cherry’s termination. The trial court observed that Cherry maintains that the “owners of Premier were unaware of Cherry’s homosexuality until around September 2019 and that Cherry had kept his sexual orientation a secret for some period of time because he knew that Zeke had a negative opinion of homosexuals based on statement he had made throughout Cherry’s employment.” Although Premier claims that Cherry’s work performance had “been deteriorating for several years,” the trial court pointed out, Premier did not decide to lay Cherry off until a “few months after his sexual orientation became known.” The trial court also pointed out that although Cherry was the “highest-ranking non-equity employee of the company who had been with the company for over twenty years,” Cherry was “laid off in April 2020—just a few months after his sexual orientation became known.”

From this evidence, the trial court determined, “a reasonable jury could find that Cherry’s sexual orientation played a role” in Premier’s decision to lay Cherry off.

Marion County Wrongful Discharge Lawyers

Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our wrongful termination lawyers in Marion County, Florida have fought for the rights of wrongful termination victims for more than twenty years. If you have been wrongfully fired or have questions about your rights as a wrongful termination victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our wrongful termination lawyers in Marion County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes wrongful termination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery, and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.