Can Employers Discriminate Against Employees Based On Their Perceived Sexual Orientation?
Even landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, our employment discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida have learned, often leave more questions unanswered than answered. In its landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), the Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. In reaching its decision, the Court concluded that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII.
The Bostock decision makes clear that employees cannot be discriminated against because of their actual sexual orientation. In other words, employers cannot discriminate against employees because they are homosexual. One issue unaddressed in Bostock, however, is whether employees are protected from discrimination based on their perceived sexual orientation. Stated another way, are employees protected from discrimination because they are perceived to be homosexual? As that issue was not before the Court, Bostock provides no explicit guidance in resolving the issue.
In this article, our employment discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida explain how the decision in Goings v. Lopinto,Case No. 22-2549 (E.D. La. March 30, 2023) demonstrates that employees are protected from discrimination based on their perceived sexual orientation.
Employment Discrimination Lawsuit
In that case, a man named Goings brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”), pursuant to Tdiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Under long standing law, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII. As discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is also a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Goings claims that he was harassed because of his perceived sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.
In April 2019, Goings began working as a deputy for the JPSO. Goings alleges that, during his employment with the JPSO, he was subjected to a “pervasive pattern of unwelcome, explicit comments, suggestions, and questioning” by a Sergeant. Goings claims that the harassment began after the Sergeant, who was Goings’ supervisor, viewed a photograph of a shirtless Goings wrestling with another male co-worker. Goings maintains that the Sergeant perceived and believed Goings to be homosexual and targeted him for harassment as a result. Goings asserts that the Sergeant referred to Goings and the male co-worker in the photograph as “gay” and “husbands.” Goings alleges that more offensive and explicit remarks followed.
Perceived To Be Homosexual
Goings was to be married in October 2019, and he invited some of his co-workers to the wedding. At the time of the wedding, Goings was assigned to the night watch but wanted to be transferred to the morning shift. The Sergeant found out that co-workers had been invited to the wedding and began to pressure Goings for an invite. The Sergeant told Goings that he would get him transferred to the morning shift if he was invited to Goings’ wedding. Goings acquiesced and invited the Sergeant to the wedding, which Goings claims resulted in additional harassment. While at his wedding, according to Goings, the Sergeant sexually harassed Goings, going so far as to grab Goings’ buttocks, which was photographed.
After his wedding, according to Goings, the Sergeant subjected him to homophobic and sexually explicit comments and text messages. Goings alleges that he eventually approached his supervising Lieutenant to complain about the Sergeant’s behavior. Goings claims that he was advised that he would be punished for breaking his chain of command, which discouraged him from filing a complaint against the Sergeant.
The events ultimately escalated in December 2020, when Goings lodged an anonymous complaint to Internal Affairs of the JPSO about the alleged sexual harassment he received from the Sergeant. Goings claims that Internal Affairs failed to respond to his request to investigate his complaint but put out a blanket statement to all supervisors advising against sexual harassment. Goings alleges that he repeatedly complained about the harassment to management, but the JPSO took no action to remedy the situation or correct the alleged conduct of the Sergeant.
Goings asserts that the Sergeant learned of his anonymous complaint and intensified his harassment. Ultimately, Goings resigned in May 2021 due to the alleged sexual harassment.
Protection From Hostile Work Environment
The JPSO filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Goings’ hostile work environment harassment claim. In moving for dismissal, the JPSO argued that Goings could not maintain a claim for hostile work environment harassment because “his allegations do not reveal that [the Sergeant] was homosexual or motivated by a sexual desire towards him.” The trial court disagreed and ruled that Goings’ allegations were sufficient to support a claim for hostile work environment harassment.
In denying the JPSO’s motion for dismissal, the trial court explained that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including perceived sexual orientation, is prohibited under Title VII.” In applying this principle, the trial court observed that Goings alleges that the Sergeant “direct language and slurs at Goings, specifically slurs and derogatory terms targeting homosexual individuals.” “These terms,” the trial court reasoned, “were obviously targeted at Goings’ perceived sexual orientation.” “Taking these allegations as true,” the trial court concluded, Goings “had adequately pleaded the basis of the harassment by [the Sergeant] was his perceived sexual orientation.”
Free Consultation For Discrimination Victims
One of the most significant decisions employment discrimination victims must make is which labor lawyers to consult with regarding their employee rights under employment discrimination law. As part of our commitment to assisting employment discrimination victims, an experienced employment discrimination lawyer will speak with you personally and you will receive the individualized attention your case deserves. We offer free confidential case evaluations for employees, and you will not have to pay to speak with our employment attorneys regarding your employee rights. We are available for consultation at your convenience, including scheduling telephone consultations for evenings and weekends.
Citrus County, FL Discrimination Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our employment discrimination attorneys in Citrus County, Florida have litigated employment discrimination cases in Florida courts for more than twenty years. If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or have questions about your protection from employment discrimination, please contact our office for a free consultation with our employment discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes employment 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.