Can Employers Discriminate Against Workers Because Of Their Association With The LGBTQ+ Community?
Having litigated employment discrimination cases for more than two decades, our employee rights lawyers in Sumter County, Florida know that employees who associate with members of the LGBTQ+ community are often discriminated against in the workplace. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2002), employers are prohibited by federal employment discrimination law from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or transgender status. Although employers know they are now forbidden from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or transgender status, many employers apparently still believe they are lawfully permitted to discriminate against employees because of their association with members of the LGBTQ+ community.
In this article, our employee rights lawyers in Sumter County, Florida explain how the court in MacDonald v. Brewer School Department, 651 F.Supp.3d 243 (D. Maine 2023) resolved the issue of whether federal employment discrimination law protects employees from discrimination because of their association with members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Employment Discrimination Lawsuit
In that case, a woman named MacDonald brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer, the Brewer School Department (“BSD”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sex. In Bostock, the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII. Under well-established law, harassment on the basis of sex is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Under Bostock,harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is a form sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII.
MacDonald does not allege that she was discriminated against because of her own sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, MacDonald claims that she was discriminated against because of her association with members of the LGBTQ+ community. More specifically, MacDonald alleges that she was subjected to hostile work environment harassment because of her association with members of the LGBTQ+ community.
MacDonald has worked as an English teacher at Brewer High School since 2007. In addition to teaching, MacDonald also served as the Curriculum Leader—a department chair—for seven years and as the co-advisor for the school’s Gender and Sexuality Alliance (“GSA”). MacDonald has a transgender child who attends a different school. MacDonald claims that she “is well known for her advocacy on behalf of LGBTQ+ students,” and alleges that, beginning in 2017, she began experiencing pushback, hostility, and even retaliation in response to that advocacy.
Association With LGBTQ+ Community
In January 2017, MacDonald met with the BSD’s Superintendent to discuss concerns about the treatment of transgender students at the school, including MacDonald’s concern that some teachers were using students’ “deadnames” and former pronouns instead of their correct names and preferred pronouns.
In March 2017, students approached MacDonald with concerns that the GSA was being excluded from the yearbook. MacDonald contacted another English teacher at the school, Pelletier, who served as the yearbook advisor and decided which clubs were included in the yearbook. MacDonald asserts that Pelletier told her that the GSA was not going to be included in the yearbook because it was a “support group” and did not do “anything worth taking pictures of.” After MacDonald reported the issue to the BSD, MacDonald alleges that Pelletier was told that the GSA must be included in the yearbook. MacDonald contends that after this incident, Pelletier called her a “drama queen,” stopped responding to MacDonald’s emails, spoke negatively about her to students, and was rude and hostile to her in meetings.
In June 2017, MacDonald requested that the GSA advisor position be paid a stipend, consistent with other club advisors at the school. A few months later, MacDonald reported to the school’s Principal some comments allegedly made by another English teacher at the school, Wellman. According to MacDonald, Wellman had expressed that the GSA advisor position should not be paid because it was “like a religion” and that MacDonald was “influencing students with her beliefs.” MacDonald further alleges that Wellman told her that he viewed people in the LGBTQ+ community as “unnatural” and as “mutations of nature.” When reporting these comments, MacDonald also asked the Principal to implement more LGBTQ+ rights and awareness training for staff.
In April 2018, MacDonald filed an affirmative action complaint with the BSD alleging that she was being subjected to a hostile work environment. In connection with settling a union grievance with MacDonald, the school agreed—after multiple requests from MacDonald—to hold an LGBTQ+ rights training for staff members. The school administration, however, chose to hold the training after classes ended on the last day of school in June 2018, a day when teachers are usually permitted to leave at 12:30 p.m.
Position Taken Away
At the end of the 2018-2019 school year, Pelletier and Wellman allegedly were part of an effort to file an internal complaint against MacDonald. In June 2019, thirteen BSD employees, including Pelletier and Wellman, submitted a complaint against MacDonald to the school’s Principal. The complaint accused MacDonald of being hostile towards religious people and people she did not agree with, and of bullying staff members. During an internal investigation into the complaint, twenty-four employees were interviewed. MacDonald alleges that in those interviews in which a staff member reported a hostile interaction with MacDonald, almost every example of “hostility” focused on MacDonald’s advocacy related to LGBTQ+ issues. The results of the internal investigation concluded that MacDonald had not violated any BSD policies or rules. Despite that finding, the interim Superintendent wrote to MacDonald that she had exhibited “unprofessional” behavior.
During the spring of the 2018-2019 school year, MacDonald reapplied for the Curriculum Leader position that she had held for seven years. The Curriculum Leader position is a yearly role that comes with a salary enhancement. MacDonald alleges that although it had never done so before, the school administration decided to interview different applicants for the job. Ultimately, the school’s administration hired Pelletier as Curriculum Leader.
In July 2019, MacDonald told the Principal that the transgender flag in the cafeteria had been torn down and stuffed between the microwave and the wall. MacDonald claims that she received no response and filed an internal complaint.
MacDonald alleges that other attempts by her to get support from the school administration were unsuccessful. For example, MacDonald claims that, in March 2020, she met with the new Superintendent and Principal to discuss issues she was having with Pelletier, which she stated were making her job difficult and “her work environment unsafe.” According to MacDonald, however, “instead of exercising reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly the harassing behavior, the BSD . . . minimized and dismissed her concerns.” Adding insult to injury, MacDonald once again applied to be Curriculum Leader, but, again, Pelletier was hired instead of her. MacDonald alleges that, to this day, she “continues to experience hostility from her co-workers, difficulty with communication affecting her ability to do her duties, and continues to hear discriminatory comments by students.”
Protection Against Associational Discrimination
The BSD filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of MacDonald’s hostile work environment claim. In moving for dismissal, the BSD argued that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against employees because of their association with members of the LGBTQ+ community. The trial court disagreed and ruled that MacDonald was entitled to proceed with her associational discrimination claim.
At the outset of its opinion, the trial court observed that although Title VII now prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, the “catch here is that [MacDonald] does not allege that she was discriminated against because of her own sexual orientation or gender identity; rather, she says she was discriminated against because of her association with . . . members of the LGBTQ+ community.” In resolving the issue of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees because of their association with members of the LGBTQ+ community, the trial court looked to Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination against employees because of their association with a person of a different race.
Title VII also protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race. In interpreting the scope of Title VII’s protection against race discrimination, courts have determined that employers are forbidden from discriminating against employees because of their association with a person of a different race. For example, in Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Co., 791 F.2dd 888 (11th Cir. 1986), the court explained that “[w]here an [employee] claims discrimination based upon an interracial marriage or association, [the employee] alleges, by definition, that he has been discriminated against because of his race.” Likewise, in Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008), the court stated that “where an employee is subjected to an adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race.”
Applying Title VII’s prohibition against race-based associational discrimination, the trial court concluded that MacDonald’s claim that she was discriminated against because of her association with members of the LGBTQ+ communication “can proceed” under Title VII.
Sumter County Employee Rights Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our employee rights lawyers in Sumter County, Florida have fought for the rights of employment discrimination victims for more than twenty years. If you have experienced workplace discrimination or have questions about your rights as an employment discrimination victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our employee rights lawyers in Sumter 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.