This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(June 2020)
Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited in the United States as per the
United States Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County on June 15, 2020. A number of cities and counties in the United States have implemented non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As of October 25, 2017, at least 400 cities and counties prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees.[1] Most but not all of these cities and counties are located in states that have a statewide non-discrimination law for sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Localities in bold are jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination in the public and private sector. Localities in italics are jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination in public employment only.
Additionally, the US Supreme Courth held in Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that sexual orientation and gender identity are included under "sex" of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This affirms rulings in the Second, the Sixth, the Seventh, and the Eleventh circuit courts. Sexual orientation has been established as a protected class in
Indiana and, similarly, gender identity in
Alabama,
Florida,
Georgia,
Kentucky,
Michigan,
Ohio and
Tennessee, requiring heightened scrutiny in discrimination disputes. None of these states has enacted specific legislation addressing discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Circuit Court of Appeals rulings
Sexual orientation
Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
In 2013, Kim Hively filed a lawsuit against the
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana in
South Bend, arguing that she was denied promotions and let go from her job because of her sexual orientation. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in the case in November 2016 with discussion focusing on the meaning of the word "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace discrimination based on race, religion, national origin or sex. On April 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals ruled in an 8–3 vote that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Ivy Tech subsequently stated they would not appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. This ruling creates a precedent for lower courts in
Illinois, Indiana and
Wisconsin to follow, meaning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is now banned in these states (Illinois and Wisconsin already had laws prohibiting such discrimination).[2]Human Rights Campaign hailed the ruling, saying: "Today's ruling is a monumental victory for fairness in the workplace, and for the dignity of lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans who may live in fear of losing their job based on whom they love."[3]
Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.
On February 26, 2018, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont) ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation employment discrimination under the category of sex.[4][5] Donald Zarda, who worked for Altitude Express as a skydiving instructor in New York, is gay. To avoid any discomfort his female students might feel being strapped to an unfamiliar man, Zarda would often disclose he was gay. Before one particular jump with a female student, Zarda told her that he was gay. After the skydive, the student told her boyfriend that Zarda had inappropriately touched her and disclosed his sexual orientation to excuse his behavior. The woman's boyfriend told Zarda's boss, who fired Zarda shortly thereafter. Zarda denied touching the student inappropriately and believed that he was fired solely because of his reference to his sexual orientation. The Court ruled, 10–3, that: "Logically, because sexual orientation is a function of sex and sex is a protected characteristic under Title VII, it follows that sexual orientation is also protected."[6] Donald Zarda died in 2014 in a base jumping accident[7] and the case was continued by his family. The ruling did not focus on whether the merits of his case specifically, but whether sexual orientation was protected as a function of sex,[8] and in effect protected gay workers under the Civil Rights Act.[9] Prior to the ruling, in July 2017, the Justice Department under
President Trump had unexpectedly interceded in the case, arguing in filed a friend of the court brief that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not explicitly cover sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.[9][10] This stance put the DOJ at odds with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[9]
In December 2011, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia) ruled that Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman living in Georgia, had been unfairly terminated from her job at the Georgia Legislative Assembly due to her transgender status. Relying on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and other Title VII precedent, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was discriminated against based on her sex because she was transitioning from male to female. The Court stated that a person is considered transgender "precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes." As a result, there is "congruence" between discriminating against transgender individuals and discrimination on the basis of "gender-based behavioral norms." "Because everyone is protected against discrimination based on sex stereotypes, such protections cannot be denied to transgender individuals", the Court ruled.[11]
EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes
On March 7, 2018, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination against transgender people. It also ruled that employers may not use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify discrimination against LGBT people. Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman, began working for a funeral home and presented as male. In 2013, she told her boss that she had a gender identity disorder and planned to transition. She was promptly fired by her boss who said that "gender transition violat[es] God's commands because a person's sex is an immutable God-given fit."[12]
Case law
Case law has been established in the following cases.
Schwenk v. Hartford
On February 29, 2000, citing Title VII case law, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Guam, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington, ruled that a transgender woman serving a prison sentence appropriately stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Gender Motivated Violence Act when filing a complaint about an assault from a prison guard.[11][13][14]
Rosa v. Parks W. Bank & Trust Co
On June 9, 2000, the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island) ruled that Lucas Rosa, a transgender woman, could claim sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when a bank denied her a loan application because of the way she was dressed. The ruling cited Title VII case law.[11][14][15][16]
Tovar v. Essentia Health
On May 24, 2017, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (covering Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) ruled in Tovar v. Essentia Health, the case of a nurse practitioner in
Minnesota claiming discrimination based on gender identity because her insurance company would not cover her transgender child under her health insurance. The court ruled that Tovar lacked standing to pursue the claims of discrimination because she could not file suit on behalf of her child. However, in its ruling the 8th Circuit wrote that "because the district court concluded that Tovar is not within the class of plaintiffs for whom Title VII and the MHRA create causes of action, we assume for purposes of this appeal that the prohibition of sex-based discrimination under Title VII and the MHRA encompasses protection for transgender individuals".[16]
Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company
In April 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that although a woman hadn't proven she had been discriminated against for being transgender by the company
Phillips 66, if that had been proven, then the woman would have "had a case" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[17][18] The judge, who had been appointed by President
George H. W. Bush in 1992, cited other recent cases as shaping the final decision.[17]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees and contractors by an executive order.[27]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. The Arkansas Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act blocks any local unit of government from barring discrimination on any basis not already covered by state law to private businesses.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.[44]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. Florida cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include
Miami,
Fort Lauderdale,
Tampa,
Tallahassee, etc.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order.[2] Indiana cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include
Bloomington,
Lafayette and
Evansville.[91][92]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.[122][123]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.[142]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.[143]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity or expression[c] for state employees by executive order.[146] Ohio cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include
Cleveland,
Lakewood,[147] and
East Lansing, among others.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. While the state has not explicitly enacted anti-discrimination legislation, discrimination in employment based on both sexual orientation and gender identity is interpreted by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as being banned under the category of sex of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.[170] Pennsylvania cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include
Pittsburgh,
Mt. Lebanon, and
Ross Township, among others.[171][172]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.[d] The Tennessee
Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act blocks any local unit of government from barring discrimination on any basis not already covered by state law to private businesses.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. Texas cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. This include the city of
Dallas.
Note that Arlington, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, Lubbock,[211] Mesquite, and Waco have protections for sexual orientation and gender identity offered only for city employment, which may include city contractors.[26]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.[216][217] An additional law within Virginia, also allows cities and counties to make their own ordinances on this topic as well listed below.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for both public and private employees by state statute. Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity for state employees by executive order.[236] Wisconsin cities banning discrimination on account of gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include
Milwaukee,
Madison and
Cudahy.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by statute.[248]
Notes
^Statewide executive order against employment discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity was allowed to expire in February 2015 under Governor
Sam Brownback; reinstated in January 2019 by Governor
Laura Kelly.[106]
^The North Carolina Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act blocks any local unit of government from barring discrimination on any basis not already covered by state law to private businesses.
^Statewide executive order against employment discrimination on the basis of just gender identity was allowed to expire in January 2011 under Governor
John Kasich, reinstated in December 2018 by Kasich.
^The Tennessee Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act blocks any local unit of government from barring discrimination on any basis not already covered by state law to private businesses.
^"Affirmative Action / Equal Employment Opportunity". Sarasota County. Archived from
the original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved January 14, 2013. All recruitment, hiring, training, and promotion of persons employed by Sarasota County, in all positions, are accomplished without regard to [...] gender identification or sexual orientation
^Schneider, Grace (August 22, 2012).
"New Albany anti-discrimination law draws raves from Kentucky". The Courier-Journal. Retrieved January 3, 2013. New Albany's new law bans discrimination in employment, education, housing and public accommodations based on an individual's actual or perceived [...] sexual orientation, gender identity
^"Human Resources – Job Listings". Missoula County. Archived from
the original on 2014-06-06. Retrieved 2014-05-27. Missoula County will not refuse employment or discriminate in compensation, benefits, or the other terms, conditions and privileges of employment based upon: [...] sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression
^"Sec. 13-89. – Unlawful practices—Employers". library.municode.com. It is an unlawful practice for an employer, wholly or partially because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability
^"Postings". City of Fargo. Archived from
the original on June 17, 2013. Retrieved June 18, 2013. The City of Fargo provides Equal Employment Opportunity for all individuals without regard to [...] sexual orientation
^"Chapter 159 Human Relations Commission". Conway Greene Co. October 22, 2007. Archived from
the original on January 8, 2015. Retrieved May 24, 2013. "Sexual orientation" means a person's actual or perceived homosexuality; bisexuality; or heterosexuality or transgender, by orientation or practice, by and between consenting adults.
^Philadelphia City Council Records Office. August 1982. Executive Summary of Bill 1358. Legal Document. Box 21. Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force Records. SCRC 31. Special Collections Research Center. Temple University Libraries. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
^"Human Resources – Frequently Asked Questions"(PDF). Minnehaha County. Archived from
the original(PDF) on May 30, 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2013. Minnehaha County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of [...] sexual orientation
^"Walker County Employment Application"(PDF). Walker County, Texas. August 11, 2003. Retrieved May 24, 2013. Walker County provides equal employment and advancement opportunities for all persons regardless of race, creed, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or any other classification protected by law.
^ARTICLE X. - NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES It shall be the general policy of the city to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability
^"Harpers Ferry Human Rights Ordinance"(PDF). Corporation of Harpers Ferry. March 11, 2013. Archived from
the original(PDF) on December 3, 2013. Retrieved May 21, 2013. "Sexual orientation" means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's assigned sex at birth.