Are Employees Protected From Harassing Homophobic Slurs In The Workplace?
Having represented employment discrimination victims for more than twenty years, our sexual orientation discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida know that many employees remain unaware that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is an unlawful employment practice. For decades, federal courts ruled that federal employment discrimination law provides no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. In the landmark decision of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).
Because the Bostock Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII. When an employee is harassed on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status, and the harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment, the harassment is a form of unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. In this article, our sexual orientation discrimination attorneys in Citrus County, Florida explain how the decision in Goodwin v. UTGR, Inc., 2024 WL 4355044 (D. R.I. Sept. 30, 2024) demonstrates that the Bostock Court’s ruling means that employees are now protected from homophobic slurs in the workplace.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawsuit
In that case, a man named Goodwin brought a sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, UTGR, Inc., d/b/a Bally’s Twin River Lincoln Casino Resort (“Twin River”), pursuant to Title VII. Goodwin alleges that he was harassed because of his sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.
Goodwin was a table games dealer at Twin River for eight years until he ultimately resigned from this position in August 2022. During his time at Twin River, Goodwin claims that he was harassed because of his sexual orientation by a co-worker, Hopkins. The alleged harassment began in November 2019, when Goodwin discovered that someone damaged his car’s windshield wiper in the process of placing a note underneath that stated, “why do you always park like a [jerk], you pussy momma’s boy.” After reviewing his car’s camera footage, Goodwin identified Hopkins as the individual who left the note.
Goodwin promptly reported the incident to Twin River management via an incident report in which he explicitly stated that he believed Hopkins’ harassment was due to Goodwin’s sexual orientation. Two days later, the Human Resources Manager called Goodwin to inform him that there was nothing Twin River could do regarding the incident.
About one month later, Goodwin discovered that someone had deliberately parked their car to block entry through the driver’s side door. After review of his car’s camera footage, Goodwin observed that Hopkins was responsible for the blockage and reported the incident to the Human Resources Manager. After an investigation of the incident, Twin River management issued a reprimand to Hopkins, instructing him to “conduct himself in a professional and courteous manner with all employees.”
In March 2021, a co-worker of Goodwin served as a witness for an incident report, reporting that he overheard a union representative, Gilbert, call Goodwin a homophobic slur and said he “knew where he and his kids lived.” Shortly after this incident, Goodwin requested that his union dues not be withheld from his paycheck. Human Resources approved his request.
In December 2021, a Twin River employee, Flanagan, was acting in his capacity as a union representative when he accompanied Goodwin to a meeting with Human Resources about potential discipline. On the way to the meeting, Flanagan allegedly told Goodwin, “Now when we go up there, none of that gay [stuff].” At the meeting, Goodwin argued against having Flanagan being present as his union representative. But Twin River management neither permitted Goodwin to leave the meeting nor have another union representative represent him.
In August 2022, Goodwin resigned his employment. Goodwin testified that he resigned because he “couldn’t take the pressure that was mounting . . . the depression and . . . the same four walls and the same management and the same just general harassment.”
Slurs Create A Hostile Work Environment
Twin River filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Goodwin’s sexual orientation harassment claim. In moving for dismissal, Twin River argued that the alleged sexual orientation harassment Goodwin experienced was not sufficiently serve or pervasive to create a hostile working environment in violation of Title VII. The disagreed and ruled that Goodwin was entitled to proceed to a jury trial on the issue of whether he was harassed on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.
In denying Twin River’s motion for dismissal, the trial court determined that Goodwin “has presented evidence in which a reasonable jury could conclude that the harassment he experienced was severe or pervasive and altered his employment conditions.” In support of its conclusion, the trial court explained that the “offensive incidents Goodwin cites to reveals at least pervasive discrimination harassment because there were three distinct incidents in which three individuals—Hopkins, Flangan, and Gilber—directed homophobic animus toward him during his time at Twin River.” “Those incidents of harassment during Goodwin’s eight year at Twin River,” the trial court reasoned, “may be sufficient evidence for a jury to find that a sexually hostile work environment exists.” In other words, the trial court explained, “a reasonable jury may well find being called a ‘pussy ass momma’s boy,’ a [homophobic slur], and being told ‘none of that gay [stuff],’ are incidents that, in the aggregate, show a workplace permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult as to constitute a hostile work environment.”
Citrus County Discrimination Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our sexual orientation discrimination attorneys in Citrus County, Florida have litigated employment discrimination cases in Florida courts for more than twenty years. If you have experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or have questions about your protection from sexual orientation discrimination, please contact our office for a free consultation with our sexual orientation discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes sexual orientation discrimination 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.