New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Posts Tagged ‘sexual orientation discrimination’

Out Gay Federal Judge Rejects Anonymity for Genderqueer Trans-Masculine Plaintiff

Posted on: May 7th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

 

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken, himself the first out gay man to be appointed a federal trial judge, has granted a motion by the defendants in an employment discrimination case to lift an order he had previously issued allowing the plaintiff, a “genderqueer and transmasculine” individual, to proceed anonymously as “Jamie Doe” in a discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, and two of Fedcap’s supervisors. Judge Oetken gave the plaintiff 14 days from the April 27 ruling on FedCap’s motion to decide whether they intend to proceed with this suit using their real name.  Doe v. Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., 2018 WL 2021588, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71174 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018).

The plaintiff uses “preferred pronouns of ‘they,’ ‘their,’ and ‘theirs,” wrote the judge. “Doe” alleges that “the Defendants discriminated against Doe based on Plaintiff’s disability (breast cancer, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder), sexual orientation (queer), and gender (gender non-conformity/genderqueer/trans-masculine). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising their rights under the Family Medical Leave Act.  Plaintiff has since left Fedcap and found new employment.”  Upon filing the lawsuit, Doe had moved to proceed under a pseudonym. The court granted the motion without prejudice to the Defendants’ right to seek lifting of the order, which they have now done.

The starting point for the court is Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “all the parties” be named in the title of a Complaint. The 2nd Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over cases filed in the Southern District of New York, has ruled that this requirement “serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly.”  That court has commented, “When determining whether a plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym, the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant.”  The 2nd Circuit has identified a non-exclusive list of ten different factors that courts might consider in conducting such a balancing test.

The plaintiff identified four harms if their name is revealed in this litigation. Plaintiff says their trans-masculinity is an “intimate detail” that they don’t want to disclose through the public record; that “outing them” as trans-masculine would compound the trauma they have already suffered from the defendant’s discrimination; that “genderqueer individuals suffer disproportionately from discrimination” and “outing” them in this way would place them “at further risk of discrimination by employees at their new job,” and finally that, as a parent of school-age children, plaintiff is concerned that disclosing their identity may expose their children to bullying.”

The defendants identified three types of prejudice to them if plaintiff is allowed to proceed anonymously. First, the “non-trivial cost of sealing or redacting court filings;” second, that “anonymity might allow Plaintiff to make accusations that they would not have made if their identity were publicly known;” and third, “Defendants contend that anonymity creates an imbalance when it comes to settlement negotiations.”  The defendants, who are not anonymous, may feel public pressure to settle the case in order to avoid bad publicity, while an anonymous plaintiff might “hold out for a larger settlement because they face no such reputational risk.”

Judge Oetken concluded that the case “presents no particularly strong public interest in revealing Plaintiff’s identity beyond the ‘universal public interest in access to the identities of litigants,’” which he remarks is “not trivial.” But the public interest would not be “especially harmed if Plaintiff proceeded pseudonymously.”

However, wrote the judge, “The key issue here is the extent to which Plaintiff has already revealed their gender and sexual orientation to the general public. Defendants point to Plaintiff’s voluntary participation in a news story for a major news outlet.  In the story, Plaintiff used their real name, identified as genderqueer, and revealed other details about their gender non-conformity.  The article also featured a photograph of Plaintiff, and the picture specifically illustrated Plaintiff’s non-conformance with gender norms.”  Thus, the defendants argued, Doe had already voluntarily disclosed “the sensitive issues they seek to keep secret in this case.”

Doe disagrees, saying they have revealed their sexual orientation but not their gender identity, particularly their identity as “trans-masculine,” which would be disclosed if they have to proceed under their real name in this lawsuit. But this argument did not persuade Judge Oetken, who wrote, “But while that is true, the news story still shows that Plaintiff was comfortable with putting their gender-non-conformity in the public eye.  The Court is mindful that coming out is a delicate process, and that LGBTQ individuals may feel comfortable disclosing one aspect of their identity but uncomfortable disclosing another.  Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s very public coming out as genderqueer undermines their arguments about the harm that would be caused by disclosure of their trans-masculinity.”

The court concluded that the issue was “whether the additional disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity as trans-masculine would so harm Plaintiff as to outweigh the significant prejudice to Defendants and the public interest in access to the identities of the litigants. Plaintiff has not met that significant burden.”  Oetken suggests that Plaintiff wants “what most employment-discrimination plaintiffs would like: to sue their former employer without future employers knowing about it,” but that is not how the civil litigation system is set up.  “Defendants – including two individuals – stand publicly accused of discrimination and harassment, including detailed allegations of misconduct.  Defendants do not have the option of proceeding pseudonymously,” commented Oetken. “Allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously would put Defendants at a genuine disadvantage, particularly when it comes to settlement leverage.  Courts allow such an imbalance only in unique circumstances, and Plaintiff has not shown that this is one of those special cases.”

While acknowledging that the disclosure of Doe’s trans-masculinity “would be difficult and uncomfortable,” wrote the judge, “this alone is not enough to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to proceed pseudonomously, especially in light of Plaintiff’s public identification as genderqueer.”

During the early years of the AIDS epidemic, many federal courts granted motions for plaintiffs suing for AIDS-related discrimination to proceed as John Doe or Jane Doe, accepting the argument that requiring them to sue under their own names would have compounded the discrimination they had suffered, especially in light of the media interest in reporting about legal issues stemming from the epidemic. Today, when there is considerable litigation by transgender individuals, including high school students seeking appropriate restroom access, it is not unusual to find that the court will refer to plaintiffs by their initials, even though the plaintiffs — represented by public interest law firms — may have revealed their names and posed for photos to publicize their cases.  One suspects that “Jaime Doe” would have been allowed to proceed anonymously had they not already appeared under their name in news stories.

Doe is represented by Brittany Alexandra Stevens of Phillips & Associates PLLC, and Marjorie Mesidor of Phillips & Phillips PLLC. Attorneys from the law firm of Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., represent the defendants.

2nd Circuit, En Banc, Votes 10-3 That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Violates Federal Employment Discrimination Law

Posted on: February 26th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, with appellate jurisdiction over federal cases from New York, Connecticut and Vermont, ruled on February 26 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination because of an individual’s sex, also makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a person because of his or her sexual orientation.

 

The ruling in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4608, was not unexpected, as the questions and comments of the judges during the oral argument held on September 26, 2017, suggested general agreement that it was time for the 2nd Circuit to bring its case law in line with the evolving understanding that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.

 

The Zarda ruling widens a split among federal appeals courts, as the 2nd Circuit joins the Chicago-based 7th Circuit, which ruled the same way last spring in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, in departing from the consensus of all the other circuit courts that have previously addressed the issue.  Although the Supreme Court recently refused to review a three-judge panel decision from the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit, Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, which had decided the other way, the Zarda ruling makes it more likely that the Court will soon take up the issue, especially if an employer on the losing end of the argument petitions the court to do so.

 

The Zarda case dates from the summer of 2010, when Donald Zarda, an openly gay sky-diving instructor, was fired by Altitude Express after a female customer’s boyfriend complained that Zarda had “come out” to his girlfriend while preparing for a “tandem skydive” during which they would be strapped together.

 

Zarda complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which at that time had not yet accepted the idea that sexual orientation claims violate Title VII. In his EEOC charge, Zarda asserted that he suffered discrimination because of his gender, complaining that he was fired because he “honestly referred to [his] sexual orientation and did not conform to the straight male macho stereotype.”  The EEOC, which did not then take a position on the merits of his claim, issued him a letter authorizing him to bring a lawsuit, which he did in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

 

Zarda’s court complaint cited Title VII, alleging sex discrimination (including discrimination because of a failure to conform to gender stereotypes), and the New York Human Rights Law, which explicitly outlaws sexual orientation discrimination.  The district court rejected his Title VII claim, following 2nd Circuit precedent, but allowed his state law claim to go to trial, where a jury ultimately ruled against him.  By the time of the trial, unfortunately, Zarda had died in a sky-diving accident, but the lawsuit was continued by his estate, seeking damages for employment discrimination.

 

In July 2015, the EEOC changed its view of the sexual orientation issue under Title VII, issuing a decision in the case of David Baldwin, a gay air traffic controller suing the U.S. Transportation Department.  The EEOC held that when an employer discriminates because of a person’s sexual orientation, the employer is unlawfully taking account of the person’s sex in making an employment decision.  Zarda’s Estate sought reconsideration of its Title VII claim from the district court, but was turned down, and encountered the same rejection from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals last spring.  The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs, Robert Sack, and Gerard Lynch.

 

However, in a different case decided last spring, Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, also presenting the sexual orientation issue under Title VII, a three-judge panel applied 2nd Circuit precedent to reject a sexual orientation claim but, in a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, taking note of the 7th Circuit’s Hively ruling and the EEOC’s Baldwin decision, suggested that the 2nd Circuit should reconsider its precedent in an appropriate case.  That would require a rare “en banc” review by the full bench of the Circuit.  The Zarda case, decided shortly after Christiansen, provided the opportunity for this, and the Circuit voted to grant a petition for reconsideration.

 

The panel that heard arguments on September 26 included all eleven active judges of the circuit plus two senior judges, Robert Sack and Gerard Lynch, who were part of the three-judge panel whose decision was being reconsidered.

 

All ten judges in the majority agreed with the proposition that individuals can bring a sexual orientation discrimination claim under Title VII, but only five judges agreed to base their decision on the three different theories that the EEOC and the 7th Circuit had embraced in their decisions.

 

Judge Katzmann wrote what the court described as the “majority opinion,” basically channeling his concurring opinion from the Christiansen case.  “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,” wrote Katzmann, explaining the first of three theoretical bases for the ruling, continuing that “because sexual orientation discrimination is a function of sex, and is comparable to sexual harassment, gender stereotyping, and other evils longs recognized as violating Title VII, the statute must prohibit it.”

 

“Our conclusion is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s test for determining whether an employment practice constitutes sex discrimination,” he continued.  “This approach, which we call the ‘comparative test,’ determines whether the trait that is the basis for discrimination is a function of sex by asking whether an employee’s treatment would have been different ‘but for that person’s sex.’”  Here her reverted to the 7th Circuit’s Hively decision, where that court found that a lesbian college professor, a woman who was attracted to women, would not have been fired if she was attracted to men.  “But for” her being a woman, her attraction to women would not have led to her discharge.

 

“To determine whether a trait operates as a proxy for sex,” he wrote, “we ask whether the employee would have been treated differently ‘but for’ his or her sex.  In the context of sexual orientation, a woman who is subject to an adverse employment action because she is attracted to a woman would have been treated differently if she had been a man who was attracted to women.  We can therefore conclude that sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination.”

 

The second theory is the gender stereotype theory.  “Specifically,” wrote Katzmann, “this framework demonstrates that sexual orientation discrimination is almost invariably rooted in stereotypes about men and women.”  He reviewed the history of Supreme Court rulings developing the stereotype theory in the context of sex discrimination.

 

Finally, he turned to the associational theory, noting that the 2nd Circuit had accepted this theory in the context of race discrimination in a 2008 decision involving a white man who was discharged because he had married a black woman.  The court had found that this was discrimination because of both his race and the race of his wife, and thus violated Title VII.  Applying the reasoning of that case, he wrote, “if a male employee married to a man is terminated because his employer disapproves of same-sex marriage, the employee has suffered associational discrimination based on his own sex because ‘the fact that the employee is a man instead of a woman motivated the employer’s discrimination against him,’” quoting from the EEOC’s Baldwin decision.

 

Katzmann rejected the argument that the failure of Congress to approve any of more than fifty bills that have been introduced since the 1970s to add sexual orientation to the prohibited grounds for discrimination under federal law should defeat Zarda’s claim, or that the failure of Congress to address this issue when it amended Title VII in 1991 to overrule several Supreme Court decisions on other discrimination issues should be construed to constitute congressional approval of the three court of appeals decision that had up to that time rejected sexual orientation claims under Title VII.

 

This appeal was unusual in that the government filed amicus briefs and made arguments on both sides of the issue.  The EEOC filed a brief supporting the Zarda Estate’s claim that Title VII covers sexual orientation claims, consistent with its ruling in the Baldwin case, but the Justice Department filed a brief and participated in the oral argument on the other side, taking the view, consistent with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announced position, that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity claims.  A large portion of Judge Katzman’s opinion, which runs over 65 pages, was devoted to refuting various arguments made by the Justice Department.

 

Several of the concurring judges joined the result but limited their agreement to the associational discrimination theory, finding it to be consistent with the Circuit’s 2008 race discrimination case.  Judge Dennis Jacobs went further, explaining why he was not convinced by the other theories accepted by Judge Katzmann.  Judge Raymond Lohier, Jr., premised his agreement on Judge Katzmann’s “but for” argument.

 

Judge Jose Cabranes concurred in the judgment without signing on to any of the other opinions, characterizing this as “a straightforward case of statutory construction.” He wrote, “Zarda’s sexual orientation is a function of his sex.  Discrimination against Zarda because of his sexual orientation therefore is discrimination because of his sex, and is prohibited by Title VII.  That should be the end of the analysis.”

 

Judge Lynch’s dissenting opinion was actually longer than Judge Katzmann’s majority opinion, providing a detailed history of the adoption of Title VII to support his agreement with Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th Circuit (who dissented in the Hively case) that the court must confine its interpretation of Title VII to what the legislators thought they were enacting in 1964.  Their argument is that the role of the court in statutory interpretation is relatively modest, and does not extend to “updating” statutes to embrace new legal principles that are not clearly logical extensions of what the legislature intended to address.  Lynch went out of his way to say multiple times that he thinks sexual orientation discrimination is a bad thing, to laud the states that have banned such discrimination, and to bemoan the failure of Congress to address the issue.  But, he insisted, it was not the role of the court to impose new legal obligations on private employers under the guise of interpreting a statute adopted more than fifty years ago. Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Reena Raggi also dissented, agreeing with Judge Lynch.

 

Thus, the three dissenters premised their view on a judicial philosophy concerning the statutory construction rather than a view about whether sexual orientation discrimination should be illegal.

 

New York, Connecticut and Vermont already have state laws banning sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, so the 2nd Circuit’s ruling does not alter the obligations of employers and the rights of employees in a substantial way.  But it opens the doors of the federal court houses to such discrimination claims, and there are some ways in which Title VII can provider a broader range of protection than the state laws.  For example, at the Zarda trial, the judge gave a jury charge that required a finding that Zarda’s sexual orientation was the motivating factor in his discharge.  Such a charge would be too narrow under Title VII, where a jury could find a statutory violation as long as sexual orientation was “a factor,” even if there were other factors contributing to the decision.  Thus, the jury’s verdict on the state law claim will not preclude a ruling in favor of Zarda’s Estate when the case is returned to the district court for disposition of the Title VII claim.

 

New York solo practitioner Gregory Antollino has represented first Zarda and then his Estate throughout the proceedings, with Stephen Bergstein as co-counsel for the Estate. Altitude Express, which now has to decide whether to petition the Supreme Court for review or to defend the case back in the Eastern District court, is represented by Saul D. Zabell of Bohemia, New York.  Arguing as amicus in support of Zarda were Jeremy Horowitz from the EEOC and Gregory Nevins from Lambda Legal.  Arguing as amicus in support of Altitude Express were Hashim M. Mooppan from the Justice Department and Adam K. Mortara, of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, as a court-appointed amicus. The case attracted many other amicus curiae filings, including from the LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, and a wide array of civil rights, civil liberties, and LGBT rights groups in support of Zarda’s appeal.  On the other side were arrayed the Justice Department and some conservative groups, including the Christian Legal Society, the National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Justice Foundation, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

 

 

Hawaii Appeals Court Says Religious B&B Owner May Not Reject Same-Sex Couples as Customers

Posted on: February 24th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

Hawaii Appeals Court Says Religious B&B Owner May Not Reject Same-Sex Couples as Customers

The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii has affirmed a ruling by the state’s 1st Circuit Court that the operator of an owner-occupied Bed & Breakfast violated the state’s public accommodations law by refusing to rent a room to a lesbian couple from California who were seeking vacation accommodations.  The opinion for a three-judge panel of the court by Chief Judge Craig Nakamura rejected the defendant’s argument that this application of the law violates her constitutional rights, and also rejected an argument that because the B&B is owner-occupied it is entitled to an exemption under a law governing residential real estate transactions.  Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, No. CAAP-13-0000806 (Feb. 23, 2018).

Diane Cervelli emailed Aloha Bed & Breakfast to determine whether a room was available for a planned vacation trip, then following up in a phone call with the owner, Phyllis Young, about making a room reservation for herself and her partner, Taeko Bufford.  Everything went well on the telephone until Cervelli mentioned that she was reserving for herself and another woman.  Young asked if Cervelli and the other woman were lesbians.  When Cervelli answered “Yes,” Young said, “We’re strong Christians.  I’m very uncomfortable in accepting the reservation from you.”  Young hung up on Cervelli.  Bufford then called and received the same treatment.  “Apart from Plaintiff’s sexual orientation,” wrote Judge Nakamura, “there was no other reason for Young’s refusal to accept Plaintiffs’ request for a room.”

Each of the women filed a complaint with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, alleging a violation of the state’s public accommodations law.  The Commission found “reasonable cause” to believe that Aloha B&B had violated the statute, but bowed to the plaintiffs’ desire to file a court action rather than pursue the matter administratively, issuing them a “right to sue letter.”  After the lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court, the Commission intervened as a co-plaintiff.

The law’s definition of “public accommodation” includes “an inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment that provides lodging to transient guests,” and lists “sexual orientation” as a prohibited ground for discrimination. A different statute, governing residential leases, provides an exemption from anti-discrimination requirements for “the rental of a room or up to four rooms in a housing accommodation by an owner or lessor if the owner or lessor resides in the housing accommodation.”  Aloha B&B argued that it was entitled to the owner-occupied premises exemption, but both the circuit court and the court of appeals disagreed.  They found that the exemption was intended to govern residential leases creating a landlord-tenant relationship in which the tenant moves in and resides in the premises for an extended period of time, not for “transient” customers who generally stay for a few days at best and are not establishing their residence in the rented rooms.

The court said that it was “clear based on the plain statutory language that Aloha B&B is a ‘place of public accommodation,’” and noted that the defendant had admitted in its pretrial statement that “it offers bed and breakfast services to the general public.” Reviewing the defendant’s advertising practices, and the data showing that the overwhelming majority of its customers – running up to 100 or more individuals a year – stay for only a few days, the court found Aloha’s claimed exemption inapplicable.  The court noted that Aloha generally rented rooms to anybody who applied, denying services only to gay people and smokers.

Aloha raised three constitutional defenses.

First, it argued that requiring it to rent a room to this lesbian couple violated Young’s right of privacy. “Aloha B&B argues that the right of privacy is ‘the right to be left alone,’” wrote Judge Nakamura.  “However, to the extent that Young has chosen to operate her bed and breakfast business from her home, she has voluntarily given up the right to be left alone.  In choosing to operate Aloha B&B from her home, Young, for commercial purposes, has opened up her home to over one hundred customers per year, charging them money for access to her home.  Indeed, the success of Aloha B&B’s business and its profits depend on members of the general public entering Young’s home as customers.  In other words, the success of Aloha B&B’s business required that Young not be left alone.”

“The privacy right implicated by this case is not the right to exclude others from a purely private home,” continued Nakamura, “but rather the right of a business owner using her home as a place of public accommodation to use invidious discrimination to choose which customers the business will serve. We conclude that Young’s asserted right to privacy did not entitle her to refuse to provide Plaintiffs with lodging based on their sexual orientation.”

Next, Young claimed a violation of her right of “intimate association,” but the court rejected this claim as well. “The relationship between Aloha B&B and the customers to whom it provides transient lodging is not the type of intimate relationship that is entitled to constitutional protection against a law designed to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations,” wrote Nakamura, again taking note of the large volume of customers passing through the premises for short stays over the course of a year.  “The hundreds of customer relationships Aloha B&B forms through its business is far from the ‘necessarily few’ family-type relationships that are subject to constitutional protection,” he wrote.  “With respect to the purpose for which the relationship is formed, Aloha B&B forms relationships with its customers for commercial, business purposes, and it is only the commercial aspects of the relationship” that the public accommodations law regulates.

Young had testified that the “primary purpose” of the B&B is to “make money,” wrote Nakamura, and, “She also admitted that if she could not make money by running Aloha B&B, she ‘wouldn’t operate it.’ Young does not operate Aloha B&B for the purpose of developing ‘deep attachments and commitments’ to its customers.”

Finally, Young made a “free exercise of religion” claim. This was doomed to fail under the federal Constitution, since the Supreme Court has held that individuals and businesses do not enjoy a constitutional exemption from complying with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribe (or proscribes).”  See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).  Thus, Young sought instead to locate her argument in the Hawaii constitution, arguing that the court should depart from federal constitutional precedents and “impose a compelling state interest requirement, and apply strict scrutiny in deciding its free exercise claim under the Hawaii Constitution.”

The court was unwilling to take the bait, stating, “We need not decide whether a higher level of scrutiny should be applied to a free exercise claim under the Hawaii Constitution than the United States Constitution. This is because we conclude that [the public accommodations law] satisfies even strict scrutiny as applied to Aloha B&B’s free exercise claim.”  That is, the court concluded that the state of Hawaii “has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations,” and that the law is “narrowly tailored to achieve Hawaii’s compelling interest” in prohibiting such discrimination.

The court’s ruling affirmed the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the Civil Rights Commission on the liability phase of the case. Unless the case goes up to the Hawaii Supreme Court, the next step would be to send it back to the circuit court for a determination of damages for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lambda Legal staff attorney Peter C. Renn and local Hawaii counsel Jay Handlin and Linsay N. McAneeley of Carlsmith Ball LLP. Robin Wurtzel, Shirley Naomi Garcia and April L. Wilson-South represented the Civil Rights Commission in the case.  And, no surprise, Aloha B&B is represented by attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, a litigation organization that opposed LGBT rights at every opportunity.

California Judge Issues Unprecedented Ruling in Favor of Baker Who Declined to Make Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple

Posted on: February 8th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

Breaking a consensus among courts that has developed over the past several years that people with religious or moral objections to same-sex weddings are not entitled to exempt their business from selling goods or services for such events, Kern County (California) Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled on February 5, 2018, in Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, BCV-17-102855, that Cathy Miller, owner of Cathy’s Creations, Inc., doing business as Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, is entitled to a First Amendment exemption from complying with California’s law that bans sexual orientation discrimination by businesses.  Judge Lampe is the first to rule in favor of a business in such a case.

Miller refused to make a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, who came to her bakery in August 2017 to plan for a celebration to take place in October.  They had selected a design of a cake in the display case, but since their celebration would not be until October, the transaction would be for Miller to prepare a cake specifically for their event.  “The couple did not want or request any written words or messages on the cake,” wrote the judge in his opinion.  Nonetheless, Miller refused to make it because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage, and offered to refer them to another bakery in town that was happy to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Eileen and Mireya filed an administrative complaint, charging Miller and her business with a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s law that prohibits discrimination by businesses.  The Department of Fair Employment and Housing, with is charged with enforcement of the law, filed suit against the bakery, asking the court to issue an injunction requiring that Miller’s business not refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Miller’s defense relied on two provisions of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, one forbidding laws that abridge freedom of speech, and the other forbidding laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.   Judge Lampe decided that this case could be resolved most easily by reference to the free speech provision, and did not render a ruling on whether the free exercise of religion clause would protect Miller in this case.

The judge accepted Miller “cake artist” argument, the same argument that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado is making in his case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Miller and Phillips argue that when they are contracting to produce a cake for a specific event, they are engaging in a creative effort that communicates a message of endorsement for that event.  Under this theory of symbolic speech, they argue, requiring them to make the cake when they do not approve of the event is compelling them to voice a particular message.

They rely on past decisions in which the Supreme Court has found that government officials had violated free speech rights by compelling people to voice particular messages with which they disagree, such as the famous “flag salute” cases first decided during World War II and most recently reiterated in  Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), in which the Court famously reversed direction on this issue, overruling its own prior precedent to find that the government cannot compel a student to recite the pledge of allegiance.  Although there are circumstances where the courts have held that government requirements did not impose a substantial burden on free speech, the compelled speech argument has taken on particular weight in several important LGBT-related rulings.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), for example, that Massachusetts civil rights authorities could not compel the organizers of the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade to include an LGBT rights contingent in the parade with a banner proclaiming their identity.  The court said this would unconstitutionally compel the parade organizers to include a message in their event that they did not want to include.  Similarly, although more controversially, the Court later ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 US 640 (2000), that the BSA was not required to allow an openly gay man to service as an adult leader, because that would be compelling them to implicitly send a message of endorsement for homosexuality which they did not want to communicate to their members or the public.  Unlike the unanimous parade decision, however, the Court split 5-4 in the Boy Scouts case, with a minority rejecting the contention that the BSA’s free speech rights would be unconstitutionally burdened.

Despite these rulings, the Court concluded that Congress did not unconstitutionally burden the free speech rights of law schools when it required them to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities, reasoning that the schools were free to communicate their disagreement with the anti-gay policies then followed by the Defense Department and that hosting the recruiters was not necessarily sending a message of agreement with their policies.  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006).  And the Court concluded that a state university law school was not violating the free speech or free exercise rights of conservative Christian students when it required a Christian Legal Society chapter to allow gay students to be members if CLS wanted to be an officially recognized student organization.  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).

It is difficult to follow a consistent thread of reasoning through these cases, each of which presents a slightly different factual context, which is why there is some suspense about how the Supreme Court is going to decide the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  So far, however, lower courts have been unanimous in ruling that bakers, florists, photographers, videographers, non-religious wedding venues are all required to comply with public accommodations laws (in states where they exist) and provide their services and goods to same-sex couples celebrating their unions.

Judge Lampe, the first to depart from this consensus, accepted Miller’s compelled speech argument.  “No public commentator in the marketplace of ideas may be forced by law to publish any opinion with which he disagrees in the name of equal access,” wrote the judge.  “No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.”

But, he wrote, this case is different. “The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked.  The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake.  The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.  For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”

Judge Lampe acknowledged that there was a clash of rights here, and no matter which way he ruled, somebody would feel insulted. “The court finds that any harm here is equal to either complainants or defendant Miller, one way or the other. If anything, the harm to Miller is the greater, because it carries significant economic consequences.  When one feels injured, insulted, or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self-inflicted.  The most effective Free Speech in the family of our nation is when we speak and listen with respect.  In any case, the court cannot guarantee that no one will be harmed when the law is enforced.  Quite the contrary, when the law is enforced, someone necessarily loses.  Nevertheless, the court’s duty is to the law.  Whenever anyone exercises the right of Free Speech, someone else may be angered or hurt.  This is the nature of a free society under our Constitution.”

The judge acknowledged that the case is more difficult if it is treated as a free exercise of religion case, because the Supreme Court has ruled that neutral state laws of general application do not include within them a constitutional exemption for religious dissenters. “Whether the application of the Unruh Act in these circumstances violates the Free Exercise clause is an open question,” he wrote, “and the court does not address it because the case is sufficiently resolved upon Free Speech grounds.”

Interestingly, the judge’s approach mirrors that of U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before the Supreme Court. In briefing and argument, the Solicitor General placed the government’s support for Jack Phillips’ right to refuse to make the wedding cake entirely on Free Speech grounds, and disclaimed taking any position on his right of free exercise of religion – despite the Trump Administration’s more general position, expressed in a “religious freedom” memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that religious free exercise rights should be treated as superior to just about any other legal claim.

Perhaps Judge Lampe’s decision is truly an outlier in the ongoing controversies stemming from the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2015 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, but on the other hand it may be an accurate prediction of how the Supreme Court will deal with the issue, at least in cases where the goods or services at issue could be plausibly described in terms of expressive content.

New York Appellate Division Revives Gay Police Officer’s Discrimination & Retaliation Case Against NYPD

Posted on: February 4th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

While hesitant to accuse the New York City Police Department, New York City Law Department, and a Supreme Court Justice of bizarre thinking, that is the only conclusion we can draw from Harrington v. City of New York, 2018 WL 503144, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 392 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept., Jan. 23, 2018), where a unanimous five-judge panel of the Manhattan-based Appellate Division, 1st Department, reversed a decision by Justice James E. d’Auguste from October 13, 2016, in which he reiterated a prior decision entered on November 12, 2015, to dismiss sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation claims by Michael Harrington, a former NYPD auxiliary police officer.

Harrington worked as an auxiliary police officer from 2002 until 2009, then resigned to take a police officer position in California. Evidently unhappy away from NYC, he sought to be reinstated as a police officer with NYPD in June 2009, passing a psychological exam. After his request for reinstatement was denied, he filed a new application, passing the written exam in 2010.  While his application was pending, he accepted law enforcement positions with sheriff’s departments in Arizona and Missouri, passing a psychological evaluation for both of those positions.  In September 2013, he began working as a corrections officer for the NYC Department of Correction, passing yet another psych evaluation, and he continues to serve in that position while pursuing his goal of joining the NYPD.

While employed as an auxiliary, he filed a sexual orientation discrimination complaint with the Department in 2007, which was eventually settled at the end of 2013 with a payment to him of $185,000. Assuming the City does not throw large sums of money at discrimination grievances if it believes there is no merit to their claims, one can reasonably infer that he had a decent case.  After he had signed the settlement agreement and waiver of claims on December 12, 2013, he was instructed to proceed with his then-pending 2010 application to join the NYPD, submitted to another psychological evaluation, and waited.

He was told that his application was “being held on a psychological review” which lasted more than a year. Finally, he was told that the NYPD found him not psychologically fit to be a police officer, based on the police psychologist’s conclusion that he “relied chiefly on litigation to resolve issues,” citing his 2007 discrimination claim as evidence of his “poor stress tolerance.”  Evidently, in the opinion of this psychologist, implicitly adopted by the Department, police officers who complain about discrimination against them have “poor stress tolerance” and if they pursue their claims in a legal forum, that indicates psychological unfitness to be a cop.  Stated otherwise, the unwritten policy of the NYPD is that police officers who encounter discrimination in the Department should just suck it up, and those who don’t are unfit for the force.  Wow!

Harrington got an independent psychologist to do an evaluation, and this produced the same result as the numerous other evaluations he has gone through, finding him fit to be a police officer. He also found evidence that the Department’s psychologist had omitted from his report the data showing that Harrington “met or exceeded requirements in every area of the ‘Job Suitability Snapshot,’” and omitted the psychologist’s own notes showing that Harrington’s “thought processes were ‘coherent’” and within normal limits.  His internal appeal of this rejection of his application was turned down and he filed this lawsuit, seeking damages and an order that the NYPD hire him.

Justice d’Auguste granted a motion to dismiss Harrington’s sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation claims. Reversing the trial judge, the Appellate Division panel (Justices Gische, Webber, Oing, Singh, and Moulton) concluded that his factual allegations were, rather obviously, sufficient to state claims for discrimination and retaliation.  After reciting the factual allegations now on the record, the court said that “the foregoing, taken together, and affording plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, establishes prima facie that defendants discriminated against plaintiff on account of his sexual orientation in finding him psychologically unfit to serve.”

It was also clear that the basis for the NYPD’s action was sufficient to ground a retaliation claim. “Plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for his having commenced the 2007 action against defendants, they placed a psychological hold on his present application for employment in 2014, and ultimately found him psychologically unfit for the position.”  After finding that the settlement agreement he had signed in 2013 did not bar the present action, because the release he signed applied only to claims arising up to that time, the court stated the obvious: “In finding plaintiff psychologically unfit, defendants’ police psychologist relied on plaintiff’s 2007 action against defendants.  Specifically, the police psychologist’s report stated that plaintiff had ‘poor stress tolerance’ and relied ‘chiefly on litigation to resolve issues.’  The 2007 litigation serving as the psychological disqualifier is sufficient to plead the causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action in this case.”

The court rejected the defendants’ disingenuous argument that the 2007 action was “not sufficiently temporally proximate to the alleged adverse action to support the causal connection” for a retaliation claim. “Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to permit the inference that the reason plaintiff was found psychologically unfit to serve was because he brought the 2007 action against defendants.  This, along with the extensive history of having been found psychologically fit to serve as a police officer and in similar positions, supports an inference that the disqualification was retaliation for bringing the 2007 action.”  Time for a new settlement offer from the City Law Department?

Harrington is represented by Naved Amed of Amed Marzano & Sediva PLLC.

TWO MORE LGBTQ-RELATED CONTROVERSIES DROP OFF THE SUPREME COURT DOCKET

Posted on: January 10th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

As the Supreme Court’s 2017-18 Term began in October, it looked like a banner term for LGBTQ-related cases at the nation’s highest court. Petitions were pending asking the Court to address a wide range of issues, including whether LGBTQ people are protected against discrimination under federal sex discrimination laws covering employment (from Georgia) and educational opportunity (from Wisconsin), whether LGBTQ people in Mississippi had standing to seek a federal order to prevent a viciously anti-gay religiously-motivated law from going into effect, and whether the Texas Supreme Court erred in holding that Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), did not necessarily require a municipal employer to treat same-sex married couples the same as different-sex married couples in their employee benefits plans.  The Court had already granted review in a “gay wedding cake” case from Colorado (Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was argued on December 5), and another petition involving a Washington State florist who refused to provide floral decorations for a same-sex wedding was waiting in the wings.

 

But the hopes for a blockbuster term have rapidly faded. In December, the Court declined to hear the employee benefits case and the Title VII employment discrimination case.  And now in January, the Court has declined to hear the Mississippi cases, Barber v. Bryant and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, and the Wisconsin case, Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, has settled, with the school district agreeing to withdraw its Supreme Court petition.   It may be that the only LGBTQ-related issue that the Court decides this term is the one it heard argued in December: whether a business owner’s religious objections to same-sex marriage or his right to freedom of speech would privilege him to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  An opinion expected sometime in the coming months.

On January 8, the Supreme Court refused to review a ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barber v. Bryant, 860 F.3d 345 (5th Cir.), petition for rehearing en banc denied, 872 F.3d 671 (2017), which had dismissed a constitutional challenge to Mississippi’s infamous H.B. 1523, a law enacted in 2016 that protects people who discriminate against LGBTQ people because of their religious or moral convictions.  The 5th Circuit had ruled that none of the plaintiffs – either organizations or individuals – in two cases challenging the Mississippi law had “standing” to bring the lawsuits in federal court.

H.B. 1523, which was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2016, identifies three “religious beliefs or moral convictions” and protects against “discrimination” by the state anybody who acts in accord with those beliefs in a wide range of circumstances. The beliefs, as stated in the statute, are: “(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) male (man) or female (woman) refers to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.”  Among other things, the law would protect government officials who rely on these beliefs to deny services to individuals, and would preempt the handful of local municipal laws in the state that ban discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity, so that victims of discrimination would have no local law remedy.  Mississippi does not have a state law banning sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, so H.B. 1523 in relation to private businesses and institutions was mainly symbolic when it came to activity taking place outside of the cities of Jackson, Hattiesburg and Oxford, or off the campus of the University of Southern Mississippi.

Two groups of plaintiffs brought constitutional challenges against the law in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, where the case came before Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the same judge who ruled for plaintiffs in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on same-sex marriage a few years earlier. He issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of H.B. 1523 on June 30, 2016, the day before it was to go into effect, finding that it would violate the 1st Amendment by establishing particular religious beliefs as part of the state’s law.  The plaintiffs also challenged it on Equal Protection grounds. Judge Reeves refused to stay his preliminary injunction, and so did the 5th Circuit.

The state appealed the grant of preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit, where a unanimous three-judge panel ruled on June 22, 2017, that the district court did not have jurisdiction to issue the injunction because, according to the opinion by Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, none of the plaintiffs could show that they had suffered or were imminently likely to suffer a “concrete and particularized injury in fact,” which was necessary to confer the necessary “standing” to challenge the law in federal court.  In the absence of standing, he wrote, the preliminary injunction must be dissolved and the case dismissed.

The plaintiffs asked the full 5th Circuit to reconsider the ruling en banc, but the circuit judges voted 12-2 not to do so, announcing that result on September 29.  The dissenters, in an opinion by Judge James L. Dennis, bluntly stated that “the panel decision is wrong” and “misconstrues and misapplies the Establishment Clause precedent.”  Indeed, wrote Judge Dennis, “its analysis creates a conflict between our circuit and our sister circuits on the issue of Establishment Clause standing.”

Judge Dennis pressed home the point by citing numerous cases from other circuits which, he held, would support allowing the plaintiffs in this case to seek a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect.  This gave hope to the plaintiffs that they might be able to get the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse the 5th Circuit, since one of the main criteria for the Supreme Court granting review is to resolve a split in authority between the circuit courts on important points of federal law.

However, on January 8 the Court denied the petitions the two plaintiff groups had filed, without any explanation or open dissent, leaving unresolved important questions about how and when people can mount a federal court challenge to a law of this sort. In the meantime, shortly after the 5th Circuit had denied reconsideration, H.B. 1523 went into effect on October 10.

A challenge to H.B. 1523 continues in the District Court before Judge Reeves, as new allegations by the plaintiffs require reconsideration of their standing and place in question, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s June 2017 ruling, Pavan v. Smith, 137 S. Ct. 2075, whether the law imposes unconstitutional burdens on LGBTQ people seeking to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights.

Two days after the Court announced it would not review the 5th Circuit ruling, the parties in Whitaker, 858 F. 3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017), involving the legal rights of transgender students under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, announced a settlement.  Under their agreement the school district will withdraw its cert petition.

The Supreme Court had been scheduled to hear a similar transgender student case last March, Gloucester County School Bd. v. G. G. ex rel. Grimm, but that case was dropped from the docket after the Trump Administration withdrew a Guidance on Title IX compliance that had been issued by the Obama Administration.  Since the 4th Circuit’s decision in Gavin Grimm’s case had been based on that Guidance rather than on a direct judicial interpretation of the statute, the Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the 4th Circuit for reconsideration. See 137 S. Ct. 1239 (Mar. 6, 2017). That court, in turn, sent it back to the district court, which dismissed the case as moot since Grimm had graduated in the interim.

Ashton Whitaker is a transgender boy who graduated from Tremper High School in the Kenosha School District last June. His case would have given the Supreme Court a second chance to address the Title IX issue.  Whitaker transitioned while in high school and asked to be allowed to use the boys’ restroom facilities, but district officials told him that there was an unwritten policy restricting bathroom use based on biological sex.  He sued the district under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.  U.S. District Judge Panela Pepper (E.D. Wisconsin) issued a preliminary injunction on Whitaker’s behalf in September 2016, and refused to stay it pending appeal.  See 2016 WL 5239829 (Sept. 22, 2016).

On May 30, 2017, the 7th Circuit upheld Judge Pepper’s ruling, finding that even though the Trump Administration had withdrawn the prior Title IX Guidance, both Title IX and the 14th Amendment require the school to recognize Whitaker as a boy and to allow him to use boys’ restroom facilities.  The school district petitioned the Supreme Court on August 25 to review the 7th Circuit’s decision, even though Whitaker had graduated in June.

In the meantime, Judge Pepper ordered the parties to mediation to attempt a settlement. Whitaker’s graduation in June undoubtedly contributed to the pressure to settle, and the parties asked the Supreme Court several times to extend the deadline for Whitaker to file a formal response to the petition as the negotiations continued.  According to press reports on January 10, the case settled for $800,000 and an agreement that the district would withdraw its petition.

The settlement and withdrawal of the petition leaves the 7th Circuit’s opinion standing as the first federal circuit court ruling to hold on the merits that Title IX and the 14th Amendment require public schools to respect the gender identity of their students and to allow students to use sex-designated facilities consistent with their gender identity.  However, lacking a Supreme Court ruling on the point this decision is only binding in the three states of the 7th Circuit: Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, the same three states bound by another 7th Circuit last year holding that employment discrimination because of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Oregon Court of Appeals Rules against Baker in “Gay Wedding Cake” Case

Posted on: December 31st, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed a ruling by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) that Melissa and Aaron Klein, doing business as Sweetcakes by Melissa, violated the state’s public accommodations law by refusing to provide a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.  The ruling upheld an award of $135,000 in damages, rejecting the Kleins’ argument that this application of the state law to them violates their 1st Amendment rights.  However, the court overruled the BOLI’s determination that the Kleins’ public remarks in connection with this case had also violated a separate section of the law forbidding businesses to announce in advance that they will discriminate in the future.  Judge Chris Garrett wrote for the panel.

This case is, for all practical purposes, a virtual clone of the Colorado case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on December 5, 2017.

Rachel and Laurel first met in 2004 and decided to marry in 2012. Rachel and her mother, Cheryl, went to a Portland bridal show as part of their wedding planning, and visited Melissa Klein’s booth at the show.  Sweetcakes by Melissa had designed, created and decorated a wedding cake for Cheryl’s wedding two years before, and Rachel and Cheryl told Melissa that they would like to order a cake from her.  A cake-testing appointment was set up for January 17, 2013.  Rachel and Cheryl visited the bakery shop, in Gresham, for their appointment.  Melissa was at home performing child care, so the appointment was with her husband and co-proprietor, Aaron.  During the tasting, Aaron asked for the names of the bride and groom, and was told there were two brides, Rachel and Laurel.  “At that point,” wrote Judge Garrett, “Aaron stated that he was sorry, but that Sweetcakes did not make wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies because of his and Melissa’s religious convictions.  Rachel began crying, and Cheryl took her by the arm and walked her out of the shop.  On the way to their car, Rachel became ‘hysterical’ and kept apologizing to her mother, feeling that she had humiliated her.”

In their car, Cheryl assured Rachel that they would find somebody else to make the cake. After driving a short distance, Cheryl turned back and re-entered the bakery by herself to talk with Aaron.  “During their conversation,” wrote Judge Garrett, “Cheryl told Aaron that she had previously shared his thinking about homosexuality, but that her ‘truth had changed’ as a result of having ‘two gay children.’  In response, Aaron quoted a Bible passage from the Book of Leviticus, stating, ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’  Cheryl left and returned to the car, where Rachel had remained, ‘holding [her] head in her hands, just bawling.”  Cheryl telling Rachel that Aaron had called her an “abomination” didn’t make things any better.  Rachel later stated that “it made me feel like they were saying God made a mistake when he made me, that I wasn’t supposed to be, that I wasn’t supposed to love or be loved or have a family or live a good life and one day go to heaven.”  When they got home and told Laurel what had happened, she recognized the “abomination” reference from Leviticus and “felt shame and anger.  Rachel was inconsolable, which made Laurel even angrier.”  It was Laurel who filed an online complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice, but later she filed a complaint with BOLI, as did Rachel.

News of the complaints generated a wave of media attention, which resulted in death threats and adverse attention to Rachel and Laurel as well as to the Kleins. Ultimately, BOLI’s investigation concluded that the Kleins violated two sections of the public accommodations law, one forbidding discrimination by businesses in providing goods and services because of the sexual orientation of customers, the other, based on statements that the Kleins had made about the case, as well as a sign they posted in their bakery, that they violated a provision making it unlawful for a business to announce its intent to discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation.  An administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained the first but not the second, finding that the comments in question related to the Klein’s position on this case and was not a general announcement of intent to discriminate in the future.  At the agency level, however, BOLI, disagreeing with the ALJ on this point, ruled that both provisions had been violated, and the Kleins appealed to the Court of Appeals.  The ALJ and BOLI agreed on an award of $135,000 in damages to Rachel and Laurel, to compensate them for the mental, emotional or physical suffering sustained because of the discrimination.  The agency rejected a claim for additional damages for mental, emotional or physical suffering stemming from the media and public response to their filing of the discrimination charges against the Kleins.

The first issue for the court was to determine whether the Kleins were correct in arguing that they had not violated the statute because, as they contended, their business does not discriminate against people because of their status as gay, but rather, in this instance, was declining to “facilitate the celebration of a union that conveys a message about marriage to which they do not subscribe and that contravenes their religious beliefs.” The court rejected this attempt to skirt the issue, commenting that “there is no reason to believe that the legislature intended a ‘status/conduct’ distinction specifically with regard to the subject of ‘sexual orientation.’”
Judge Garrett pointed to the state’s passage of the Oregon Family Fairness Act, which specifically provides that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights and privileges of different-sex couples. “The Kleins have not provided us with any persuasive explanation for why the legislature would have intended to grant equal privileges and immunities to individuals in same-sex relationships while simultaneously excepting those committed relationships from the protections of” the public accommodations law. The court pointed out that “under the distinction proposed by the Kleins, owners and operators of businesses could continue to oppress and humiliate black people simply by recasting their bias in terms of conduct rather than race.  For instance, a restaurant could refuse to serve an interracial couple, not on account of the race of either customer, but on account of the conduct – interracial dating – to which the proprietor objected.  In the absence of any textual or contextual support, or legislative history on that point, we decline to construe [the law] in a way that would so fundamentally undermine its purpose.”

Indeed, wrote the court, “The Kleins refused to make a wedding cake for the complainants precisely and expressly because of the relationship between sexual orientation and the conduct at issue (a wedding).  And, where a close relationship between status and conduct exists, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the type of distinction urged by the Kleins.”  Judge Garrett cited the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling, upholding the University of California-Hasting’s refusal to extend official recognition to a Christian Legal Society chapter whose membership policies excluded gay people, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Court, made this point, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, the Texas sodomy law case, where Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court that making gay conduct a crime was “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”

Turning to the constitutional challenges, the court rejected both the free speech and free exercise of religion arguments. For one thing, the court found, while conceding there would be an element of artistic expression and creativity in the process of making a wedding cake, this did not present the type of free speech issues that would merit strict scrutiny from the court.  Rather, the court found, the Supreme Court’s public accommodations jurisprudence treated such laws as neutral laws intended to achieve a legitimate purpose of extending equal rights to participate in the community, and not specifically targeted on particular political or religious views held by a particular business person.  The Kleins premised their arguments largely on the Supreme Court’s Hurley (St. Patrick’s Day Parade) and Dale (Boy Scouts) cases, in which the Supreme Court held that application of a public accommodations law to require an organization or association to include gay people would have to yield to the free expression rights of an organization that has a particularly expressive purpose.  They also focused on the famous flag salute cases from World War II and other cases in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot compel private individuals to express a message dictated by the government.

Wrote Judge Garrett, “We must decide whether the Kleins’ cake-making activity is sufficiently expressive, communicative, or artistic so as to implicate the First Amendment, and, if it is, whether BOLI’s final order compelling the creation of such expression in a particular circumstance survives First Amendment scrutiny.” Reviewing the way the Kleins produced customized wedding cakes for their customers, the court found, “the Kleins’ argument that their products entail artistic expression is entitled to be taken seriously.  That being said, we are not persuaded that the Kleins’ wedding cakes are entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as pure speech or traditional forms of artistic expression.  In order to establish that their wedding cakes are fundamentally pieces of art, it is not enough that the Kleins %believe% them to be pieces of art.  For First Amendment purposes, the expressive character of a thing must turn not only on how it is subjectively perceived by its maker, but also on how it will be perceived and experienced by others.  Here, although we accept that the Kleins imbue each wedding cake with their own aesthetic choices, they have made no showing that other people will necessarily experience %any% wedding cake that the Kleins create predominantly as ‘expression’ rather than as food.”

Further, the court found that it would be a different case “if BOLI’s order had awarded damages against the Kleins for refusing to decorate a cake with a specific message requested by a customer (‘God Bless This Marriage,’ for example) that they found offensive or contrary to their beliefs.” Then an articulated message would be conveyed, and the First Amendment issue would be much stronger.  Responding to the Kleins’ concern that the wedding cake communicates a “celebratory message” about the wedding, which they did not wish to communicate, the court pointed out that “the Kleins have not raised a nonspeculative possibility that anyone attending the wedding will impute that message to the Kleins.”  In short, wedding guests will not respond to seeing the cake at the reception by thinking that the baker is “celebrating” or “approving” this wedding.  There is nothing in the law that requires the Kleins to formally endorse same-sex marriages.

However, having found that there is at least some First Amendment free speech interest involved, the court applied “intermediate scrutiny” and found that the state had a compelling interest “both in ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services and in preventing the dignitary harm that results from discriminatory denials of service. That interest is no less compelling with respect to the provision of services for same-sex weddings,” wrote Garrett.  “Indeed, that interest is particularly acute when the state seeks to prevent the dignitary harms that result from the unequal treatment of same-sex couples who choose to exercise their fundamental right to marry,” as established in Obergefell, the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision.

The court concluded that “any burden imposed on the Kleins’ expression is no greater than essential to further the state’s interest,” pointing out that “BOLI’s order does not compel the Kleins to express an articulable message with which they disagree. … Given that the state’s interest is to avoid the ‘evil of unequal treatment, which is the injury to an individual’s sense of self-worth and personal integrity,’” wrote Garrett, quoting from a prior Oregon Supreme Court case, “there is no doubt that interest would be undermined if businesses that market their goods and services to the ‘public’ are given a special privilege to exclude certain groups from the meaning of that word.”

Turning to the free exercise of religion point, the court noted that the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribed (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”  The “incidental effect” on religion of such laws does not violate the 1st Amendment.

The court devoted most of its analysis on this point to distinguishing cases offered by the Kleins as exceptions to this rule. All of those cases involved special circumstances where it could be shown that although the laws in question were neutral on their face, they had been intended by the legislature to apply to particular religious practices and were thus not really “neutral to religion.”  The Kleins also pushed a “hybrid rights” theory, mentioned in passing in the Smith case, under which when a party’s claim arises under two different constitutional rights guarantees (in this case speech and religious exercise) the burden of justification on the state should be raised to strict scrutiny.  The court observed that apart from the passing mention in Smith, that concept had not been developed by the Supreme Court, had been rejected by many other courts, and specifically had never been adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court in construing the state’s constitution.

The court rejected the Kleins’ arguments that recognizing a limited or narrow exception for businesses whose owners had religious objections to same-sex marriage would have only a “minimal” effect on “the state’s antidiscrimination objectives,” pointing out that “those with sincere religious objections to marriage between people of different races, ethnicities, or faiths could just as readily demand the same exemption. The Kleins do not offer a principled basis for limiting their requested exemption in the manner that they propose, except to argue that there are ‘decent and honorable’ reasons, grounded in religious faith, for opposing same-sex marriage, as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell.  That is not in dispute.  But neither the sincerity, nor the religious basis, nor the historical pedigree of a particular belief has been held to give a special license for discrimination,” wrote Garrett.

The court rejected the Kleins’ claim for free speech and religious exemptions under the Oregon Constitution, pointing out that they had not advanced any additional arguments peculiar to Oregon constitutional jurisprudence that would justify going beyond the federal constitutional analysis in this case. The court also rejected the argument that BOLI’s ruling should be set aside because BOLI’s Commissioner had made public comments about the case before voting to affirm the ALJ’s ruling and award the damages.  The court found that the commissioner’s comments “fall short of the kinds of statements that reflect prejudgment of the facts or an impermissibly closed-minded view of law or policy so as to indicate that he, as a decision maker, cannot be impartial.”  The court rejected the Kleins’ objection to the damage award, finding that the ALJ and BOLI had scrupulously limited the award to damages flowing from the Kleins’ discrimination and had an adequate basis in the trial record to award the amounts in question, which were not out of line with awards in other cases.

However, the court concluded that BOLI erred by failing to affirm the ALJ’s conclusion that the Kleins had not violated a section of the law that forbids any business “to publish, circulate, issue or display… any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of. . . sexual orientation.” The court, agreeing with the ALJ but not with BOLI, found that the Kleins’ public comments about their determination to defend this case and to adhere to their religious beliefs did not specifically violate this provision.

The Kleins were careful in wording the sign they put up at their bakery and in their comments on Facebook and in the press to avoid stating that they would discriminate because of a customer’s sexual orientation. Their position throughout this case is that they were not engaging in such discrimination.  The court was not willing to interpret this section of the statute as exposing businesses to additional liability for stating publicly their belief that their past action had not violated the law.  Since BOLI’s calculation of damages awarded to Rachel and Laurel did not include any amount for violation of this section, however, the reversal of this part of the decision did not require any reduction in damages.

The Kleins were represented in this appeal by attorneys from several law firms, some specializing in championing socially conservative causes, so it would not be surprising to see them file an appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon attorney general’s office represented BOLI.  Lambda Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of Rachel and Laurel.  A long list of liberal religious associations and organizations joined in an amicus brief filed by pro bono attorneys in support of BOLI’s ruling, and amicus briefs were also filed by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Supreme Court Denies Review in Title VII Sexual Orientation Discrimination Case

Posted on: December 11th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on December 11 that it will not review a decision by a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on March 10 that a lesbian formerly employed as a security guard at a Georgia hospital could not sue for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The full 11th Circuit denied a motion to reconsider the case on July 10, and Lambda Legal, representing plaintiff Jameka Evans, filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking review on September 7.  Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017), rehearing en banc denied, 7/6/2017, cert. denied, 2017 WL 4012214 (12/11/2017).

At the heart of Lambda’s petition was an urgent request to the Court to resolve a split among the lower federal courts and within the federal government itself on the question whether Title VII, which bans employment discrimination because of sex by employers that have at least 15 employees, can be interpreted to ban discrimination because of sexual orientation.

Nobody can deny that members of Congress voting on the Civil Rights Act in 1964 were not thinking about banning sexual orientation discrimination at that time, but their adoption of a general ban on sex discrimination in employment has been developed by the courts over more than half a century to encompass a wide range of discriminatory conduct reaching far beyond the simple proposition that employers cannot discriminate against an individual because she is a woman or he is a man.

Early in the history of Title VII, the Supreme Court ruled that employers could not treat people differently because of generalizations about men and women, and by the late 1970s had accepted the proposition that workplace harassment of women was a form of sex discrimination. In a key ruling in 1989, the Court held that discrimination against a woman because the employer considered her inadequately feminine in her appearance or behavior was a form of sex discrimination, under what was called the sex stereotype theory, and during the 1990s the Court ruled that a victim of workplace same-sex harassment could sue under Title VII, overruling a lower court decision that a man could sue for harassment only if he was being harassed by a woman, not by other men.  In that decision for a unanimous court, Justice Antonin Scalia opined that Title VII was not restricted to the “evils” identified by Congress in 1964, but could extend to “reasonably comparable evils” to effectuate the legislative purpose of achieving a non-discriminatory workplace.

By the early years of this century, lower federal courts had begun to accept the argument that the sex stereotype theory provided a basis to overrule earlier decisions that transgender people were not protected from discrimination under Title VII.  There is an emerging consensus among the lower federal courts, bolstered by rulings of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), that gender identity discrimination is clearly discrimination because of sex, and so the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled several years ago in a case involving a transgender woman fired from a research position at the Georgia legislature.

However, the idea that some variant of the sex stereotype theory could also expand Title VII to protect lesbian, gay or bisexual employees took longer to emerge.  It was not until 2015 that the EEOC issued a decision in the Baldwin case concluding that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, in part responding to the sex stereotype decisions in the lower federal courts.  And it was not until April 4 of this year that a federal appeals court, the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, approved that theory in a strongly worded opinion by a decisive majority of the entire 11-judge circuit bench, just a few weeks after the 11th Circuit panel ruling in the Jameka Evans case.  Writing for the 7th Circuit in the Hively  case, Judge Diane Wood said, “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.’”

The 11th Circuit panel’s 2-1 decision to reject Jameka Evans’ sexual orientation discrimination claim seemed a distinct setback in light of these developments.  However, consistent with the 11th Circuit’s prior gender identity discrimination ruling, one of the judges in the majority and the dissenting judge agreed that Evans’ Title VII claim could be revived using the sex stereotype theory based on how she dressed and behaved, and sent the case back to the lower court on that basis.  The dissenting judge would have gone further and allowed Evans’ sexual orientation discrimination claim to proceed under Title VII.  The other judge in the majority strained to distinguish this case from the circuit’s prior sex stereotype ruling, and would have dismissed the case outright.

The 7th Circuit’s decision in April opened up a split among the circuit courts in light of a string of rulings by several different circuit courts over the past several decades rejecting sexual orientation discrimination claims by gay litigants, although several of those circuits have since embraced the sex stereotype theory to allow gay litigants to bring sex discrimination claims under Title VII if they could plausibly allege that they suffered discrimination because of gender nonconforming dress or conduct.  Other courts took the position that as long as the plaintiff’s sexual orientation appeared to be the main reason why they suffered discrimination, they could not bring a Title VII claim.

In recent years, several federal trial judges have approved an alternative argument: that same-sex attraction is itself a departure from widely-held stereotypes of what it means to be a man or a woman, and thus that discrimination motivated by the victim’s same-sex attraction is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII.  Within the New York-based 2nd Circuit, several trial judges have recently embraced this view, but three-judge panels of the Court of Appeals consistently rejected it.  Some progress was made last spring, however, when a three-judge panel in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group overruled a trial judge to find that a plaintiff whose sexual orientation was clearly a motivation for his discharge could bring a sex stereotype Title VII claim when he could plausibly allege behavioral nonconformity apart from his same-sex attraction.

More recently, however, the 2nd Circuit agreed to grant en banc reconsideration to the underlying question and heard oral argument in September in Zarda v. Altitude Express on whether sexual orientation discrimination, as such, is outlawed by Title VII.  That case involved a gay male plaintiff whose attempt to rely alternatively on a sex stereotype claim had been rejected by the trial judge in line with 2nd Circuit precedent.  Plaintiff Donald Zarda died while the case was pending, but it is being carried on by his Estate.  Observers at the oral argument thought that a majority of the judges of the full circuit bench were likely to follow the lead of the 7th Circuit and expand the coverage of Title VII in the 2nd Circuit (which covers Connecticut, Vermont and New York).  With argument having been held more than two months ago, a decision could be imminent.

Much of the media comment about the Zarda case, as well as the questioning by the judges, focused on the spectacle of the federal government opposing itself in court.  The EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the Zarda Estate, and sent an attorney to argue in favor of Title VII coverage.  The Justice Department filed a brief in support of the employer, and sent an attorney to argue that the three-judge panel had correctly rejected the plaintiff’s Title VII claim.  The politics of the situation was obvious: The Trump appointees now running the Justice Department had changed the Department’s position (over the reported protest of career professionals in the Department), while the holdover majority at the EEOC was standing firm by the decision that agency made in 2015.  As Trump’s appointment of new commissioners changes the agency’s political complexion, this internal split is likely to be resolved against Title VII protection for LGBT people.

This is clearly a hot controversy on a question with national import, so why did the Supreme Court refuse to hear the case?  The Court does not customarily announce its reasons for denying review, and did not do so this time.  None of the justices dissented from the denial of review, either.

A refusal to review a case is not a decision on the merits by the Court, and does not mean that the Court approves the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision.  It is merely a determination by the Court, which exercises tight control over its docket, not to review the case.  Hypothesizing a rationale, one might note that the plaintiff here has not suffered a final dismissal of her case, having been allowed by the 11th Circuit to file an amended complaint focusing on sex stereotype instead of sexual orientation, so she can still have her day in court and there is no pressing need for the Court to resolve the circuit split in her case.  One might also note that Georgia Regional Hospital did not even appear before the 11th Circuit to argue its side of the case, and did not file papers opposing Lambda Legal’s petition until requested to do so by the Court.

On October 11, the Supreme Court Clerk’s office distributed the Lambda petition and some amicus briefs supporting it to the justices in anticipation of their conference to be held October 27. The lack of a response by Georgia Regional Hospital evidently sparked concern from some of the justices, who directed the Clerk to ask the Hospital to file a response, which was filed by Georgia’s Attorney General on November 9, and the case was then put on the agenda for the Court’s December 8 conference, at which the decision was made to deny review.  The responsive papers argued, among other things, that the Hospital had not been properly served with the Complaint that initiated the lawsuit. Those kinds of procedural issues sometimes deter the Court from taking up a case.

For whatever reason, the Court has put off deciding this issue, most likely for the remainder of the current Term. The last argument day on the Court’s calendar is April 25, and the last day for announcing decisions is June 25.  Even if the 2nd Circuit promptly issues a decision in the Zarda case, the losing party would have a few months to file a petition for Supreme Court review, followed by a month for the winner filing papers responding to the Petition.  Even if the Court then grants a petition for review, thus starting the clock running for filing merits briefs and amicus briefs, it is highly likely that once all these papers are submitted, it will be too late in the Term for the case to be argued, so it would end up on the argument calendar for Fall 2018.

Which raises the further question of who would be on the Court when this issue is finally before it? Rumors of retirements are rife, and they center on the oldest justices, pro-LGBT Ruth Bader Ginsburg and conservative but generally pro-gay Anthony Kennedy.  If President Trump gets to nominate successors to either of them, the Court’s receptivity to gay rights arguments is likely to be adversely affected.

11th Circuit Rejects Tax Deductibility of Surrogacy Expenses

Posted on: October 3rd, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

A gay male couple that wants to have a child who is genetically related to one of the men needs to retain the services of at least one and possibly two women, depending whether they are going to use ordinary surrogacy or gestational surrogacy to have the child. Should those expenses be deductible if they exceed the threshold set by the Internal Revenue Code for deductible medical expenses?  On September 25, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service, answered in the negative. Morrissey v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18479, 2017 WL 4229063.

Joseph F. Morrissey, the plaintiff, is a gay man who has been in a monogamous relationship with his same-sex partner since 2000. (They married after the events described in this case took place, when same-sex marriage became legal in Florida.)  Morrissey characterizes himself as “effectively infertile” (since he is gay) because “it is physiologically impossible for two men to conceive a child through sexual relations.”  The way out of this “effective infertility” is to use a surrogate, a woman who is willing to bear a child and give up her parental rights after the child is born.

In 2010, Morrissey and his partner decided to try to have children through in vitro fertilization (IVF) using a gestational surrogate, with Morrissey as the sperm donor. Morrissey’s sperm would be collected and then used to fertilize a donated egg in a petri dish; the resulting embryo would be implanted in a different woman than the egg donor.  The gestational surrogate would then bear the child, both women having agreed to the termination of their parental rights as genetic mother and birth mother.  Between 2010 and 2014 Morrissey went through several IVF procedures involving three egg donors, three surrogates, and two fertility specialists.  He spent more than $100,000 altogether.  (The opinion does not mention whether he actually ended up having kids.)  During tax year 2011, he spent nearly $57,000 that was not covered by insurance on these IVF-surrogacy procedures.  $1,500 of his expenditures that year went toward procedures performed directly on Morrissey – blood tests and sperm collection.  The remainder of his expenditures that year went to identifying and retaining the women who would be egg donors and surrogates, for compensation of their services, reimbursement of their travel and other expenses, and providing medical care to the women.

Morrissey did not claim a deduction for these medical expenses when he filed his 2011 tax return, paying the full $22,449 that he owed in taxes without medical deductions. After paying his taxes, he filed an amended 2011 tax return, claiming a medical expense deduction of $36,538, the amount by which his claimed expenses exceeded the threshold specified in the Code, and seeking a $9,539 refund.  At the time, the threshold was 7.5 of adjusted gross income.  (Today it is 10, having been increased effective with the 2013 tax year.)  The $1500 he spent for medical services to himself could not be deducted on its own, because it would not exceed the threshold.  Only by being able to claim the other expenses associated with the IVF-surrogacy procedures would he be able to have any medical deduction.

The IRS disallowed his deduction and denied the refund, taking the position that Sec. 213, which governs the “medical care” deductions, “states that Medical Care must be for Medical Services provided to the taxpayer, his spouse, or dependent.” As far as IRS was concerned, the expenses Morrissey incurred were not, with the exception of the $1500, for medical services provided to him.

Morrissey then sued in the federal district court, claiming first that Section 213 authorizes his claimed deduction, and second that the IRS’s disallowance of his claim violated his equal protection rights under the 5th Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the IRS.

Writing for the panel, in one of his first opinions since being appointed to the court by Donald Trump, Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom rejected Morrissey’s attempt to bring his claim within the language of Section 213. Morrissey argued that the IVF-related expenses were “medical care” because they constituted amounts that were paid “for the purpose of affecting any . . . function of the body.”  The problem, as Newsom pointed out, was that the “body” referred to by the statute is the taxpayer’s body, and the medical care was affecting the functions of the egg donor’s and the surrogate’s bodies.  Wrote Newsom, “Mr. Morrissey contends that all of the IVF-related expenses that he incurred – including the costs attributable to the identification, retention, compensation, and care of the women who served as the egg donor and the surrogate – were made for the purpose of affecting his body’s reproductive function.  In particular, Mr. Morrissey asserts that because he and his male partner are physiologically incapable of reproducing together, IVF was his only means of fathering his own biological children.  Accordingly, Mr. Morrissey claims, it was medically necessary to involve third parties – a female egg donor and a female surrogate – in order to enable his own body to fulfill its reproductive function.”

But Judge Newsom found that the section’s “plain language” foreclosed this argument, getting into a word by word analysis with the dictionary as his authority. As he interpreted the section, it would apply only if “the expenses at issue were paid for the purpose of materially affecting or altering some function of Mr. Morrissey’s body,” and clearly they were not.  Although they were intended to solve the reproductive problem, it was not by rendering care that would affect Morrissey’s body or how his body would function.  Newsom (or more likely his clerk) had fun writing a primer on the physiology of human reproduction, in order to reach the obvious conclusion that a man’s role in the reproductive function is to ejaculate sperm, and none of the “medical care” he was trying to claim had to do with any problem concerning that.

Turning to the equal protection claim, Newsom described Morrissey’s two equal protection arguments. “First, he asserts that we should employ strict scrutiny because the IRS’s disallowance of his claimed deduction under IRC Sec. 213 infringes his fundamental right to reproduce.  Second, he argues that some form of heightened scrutiny should apply because in disallowing the deduction the IRS discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation.”

While conceding that the Supreme Court has described reproduction as a fundamental right in a broad sense, the court concluded that the issue here is “whether a man has a fundamental right to procreate via an IVF process that necessarily entails the participation of an unrelated third-party egg donor and a gestational surrogate.” As to that, the court concluded, “History and tradition provide no firm footing – let alone ‘deep rooting’ – for the right that underlies Mr. Morrissey’s claim. To the contrary, IVF, egg donation, and gestational surrogacy are decidedly modern phenomena.  Indeed, not all that long ago, IVF was still (literally) the stuff of science fiction.”  There follows a citation to and quotation from Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World (1932).

Newsom then described the controversial history of alternative reproductive medicine, whose morality has been questioned by some major religions and whose legality has been put into play by a variety of state laws, ranging from regulation to criminalization of surrogacy agreements and laws against their enforcement. “Were we to confer ‘fundamental’ status on Mr. Morrissey’s asserted right to IVF-and-surrogacy-assisted reproduction,” wrote Newsom, “we would ‘to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action.’ Particularly in view of the ethical issues implicated by IVF, egg donation, and gestational surrogacy,” he continued, “as well as the ongoing political dialogue about those issues – and mindful that ‘guideposts for responsible decision-making’ in the fundamental-rights area ‘are scarce and open-ended’ – we decline to take that step.”

The court rejected Morrissey’s invitation to opine as to whether sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” for equal protection purposes, because it found that the challenged statute – and its interpretation here – was neutral regarding sexual orientation. Newsom asserted that the statute “deals with heterosexual and homosexual taxpayers on equal terms.”  The court found that Morrissey could not show that the IRS treated him differently from a heterosexual taxpayer who sought to claim a medical deduction for the expenses of IVF-surrogacy procedures.  “The agency’s disallowance of Mr. Morrissey’s claimed deduction is consistent with longstanding IRS guidance and analogous Tax Court precedent,” he wrote, as “IRS has consistently refused deductions sought by heterosexual taxpayers for IVF-related expenses similar to Mr. Morrissey’s.  An IRS guidance published in 2002 advised that ‘medical expenses paid for a surrogate mother and her unborn child would not qualify for deduction under Sec. 213(a),’” and this was upheld in several Tax Court cases.  He pointed out that such deductions had even been disallowed where the surrogate was impregnated through sexual intercourse with the taxpayer!

The court refused to accept Morrissey’s analogy to the IRS’s allowance of deductions for fertility treatments, saying, “Even if Mr. Morrissey could show that he had been treated differently from similarly situated heterosexual taxpayers, he hasn’t shown that any difference was motivated by an intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his sexual orientation.” In essence, Morrissey’s equal protection claim was more of a disparate impact claim, not a disparate treatment claim, and the constitutional requirement of equal protection has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply only to intentional discrimination, not to the discriminatory effects of a tax regime that makes it more expensive for gay couples to have biological offspring than for those straight couples who do it the old-fashioned way.  Although Morrissey was able to come up with an internal IRS document in which an agent made a remark that might be construed as showing discriminatory intent, the court insisted that the official explanation provided by IRS for denying his claim carried no implication of any discriminatory purpose.  “Because there is no evidence that the IRS’s actual decision-makers engaged in any intentional discrimination,” wrote Newsom, “Mr. Morrissey’s equal protection claim fails.”

Morrissey is represented by Richard Donald Euliss of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA (Washington, DC) and David Paul Burke, Scott D. Feather, and Gary L. Sasso, of the same firm’s Tampa office.

 

Justice Department Tells 2nd Circuit That Gays Are Not Protected from Discrimination Under Federal Civil Rights Law

Posted on: July 27th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief on July 26 with the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, weighing in on the question whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination because of sexual orientation.  Not surprisingly, the Trump Administration’s answer is “No.”

 

Title VII lists forbidden grounds for employment discrimination: race or color, religion, sex and national origin. After it went into effect in July 1965, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency charged with enforcement of the statute, and the federal courts quickly took the position that people who encountered discrimination because they were gay or transgender could not pursue a claim under this law.  Both the administrative agency and the federal courts held fast to that position until relatively recently.

 

That consensus began to break down early in this century, first in response to discrimination claims by transgender people, as courts and then the EEOC (in 2012) accepted the argument that discriminating against somebody because they were transitioning or had transitioned was actually discrimination because of sex. The rationale they adopted derived from a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which recognized that discrimination against people for failing to comply with the employer’s stereotyped view about how people of a particular sex should behave, dress, or otherwise act, was actually discrimination because of their sex.  The 1989 case involved a woman who was denied a partnership in an accounting firm because some of the partners thought she was not sufficiently feminine to meet their image of a “lady partner,” and her immediate boss told her she should get her hair styled and start wearing makeup and jewelry if she wanted to be a partner.

 

By 2015, the EEOC had taken the analysis one step further to cover sexual orientation claims. It recognized that having a same-sex attraction violates gender stereotypes, similarly to the transgender cases, but also drew analogies to cases where courts found that discriminating against an employee for being in an interracial relationship was a form of race discrimination, called associational discrimination.  Further, the EEOC decided that it was really not plausible to distinguish between sexual orientation discrimination and sex discrimination, since both were concerned with treating people differently because of their sex.

 

Until this year, no federal appellate court had accepted these theories, but on April 4, the full bench of the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that Title VII bans sexual orientation discrimination.  Reversing its prior precedents, the court accepted the EEOC’s analysis in a lawsuit by Kimberly Hively, a lesbian who had been denied a tenure-track position by an Indiana community college.  The college decided not to appeal, taking the position that it had not discriminated at all, so the case was sent back for trial to the district court.

 

Meanwhile, however, the same issue was being litigated in other parts of the country. In the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit, a sexual orientation discrimination claim by Jameka Evans against a Georgia hospital that had been dismissed by the district court was revived by the court of appeals, but on a narrower theory.  In common with several other circuits, the 11th Circuit will accept Title VII claims from gay plaintiffs who allege that they suffered discrimination because of their failure to conform to gender stereotypes.  In this case, while a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to affirm the trial court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s sexual orientation discrimination claim, the panel sent the case back to the trial court to allow the plaintiff to pursue a sex stereotyping claim.  One member partially dissented, Judge William Pryor (who had been on Trump’s potential Supreme Court list), finding no basis for any Title VII claim by the plaintiff.  Another member of the court agreed to send the case back, but argued that Title VII should be interpreted to cover sexual orientation claims.  A third member found that the panel was bound by circuit precedent to reject the sexual orientation claim, but agreed that the plaintiff should have a chance to pursue a sex stereotype claim.  The 11th Circuit denied a petition to reconsider the Evans case “en banc” (by the full bench) a few weeks ago, and Lambda Legal announced that it will petition the Supreme Court to review the panel decision.  Lambda has until the first week of October to file its petition.

 

Meanwhile, however, within the 2nd Circuit, at least two federal district court judges have recently refused to dismiss sexual orientation claims under Title VII, finding that the circuit’s acceptance of the “associational theory” in a race discrimination case means that the court should accept sexual orientation discrimination claims.  Several other district judges have dismissed such claims, concluding that until the court of appeals explicitly overrules its earlier precedents, the trial judges are bound to follow them.  A few months ago, confronted by petitions for en banc review in three different cases, the Circuit announced that it would reconsider the panel decision in Estate of Donald Zarda v. Altitude Express.

 

In Zarda, the district court had dismissed a Title VII claim but allowed the case to go to trial under New York State’s Human Rights Law, which expressly outlaws sexual orientation discrimination. The jury ruled in favor of the employer, although it is questionable whether the jury was properly instructed about how to weigh the evidence.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Title VII claim. A three-judge panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, while noting that recent developments in the law could justify reconsideration by the full 2nd Circuit bench.  In a case decided by a different three-judge panel at around the same time, Christiansen v. Omnicom, the panel also upheld dismissal of a sexual orientation claim, but sent the case back to the district court for reconsideration as a sex stereotyping claim, and two of the judges joined a concurring opinion suggesting that it was time for the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the sexual orientation issue en banc in an “appropriate case.”  However, after granting en banc review in Zarda, the circuit court denied a petition for en banc review in Christiansen!

 

Briefs were due from the plaintiff’s side in the Zarda appeal during the last week in June. The EEOC, consistent with its interpretation of the statute, filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the Zarda. (Zarda, a sky-diving instructor, died in a diving accident after starting his discrimination case, so the lawsuit is now being pursued by his executors, seeking money damages for the estate.)    Briefs were due by July 26 from the employer and any amicus parties supporting its position.  After some suspense about what the Trump Administration might do, the Justice Department filed its brief right at the deadline.

 

It is somewhat unusual for the government to file an amicus brief in opposition to a position taken by a federal agency, and it is also unusual for the government to file a brief in a case between private parties – a former employee versus a business – but the federal government has a significant interest in this case, and the politics of EEOC v. DOJ are unusual because of the timing. Until this month, the majority of the EEOC Commissioners have been appointees of President Obama.  They decided the key sexual orientation case two years ago by a vote of 3-2, with the Republican commissioners dissenting.  Upon confirmation of Trump’s appointees to fill some vacancies, control of the EEOC will switch over to Republican hands.  But for now, the EEOC continues to pursue sexual orientation discrimination cases under Title VII, and has even filed some new lawsuits this year despite the change of administrations in January.  On the other hand, the Justice Department reflects the views of the new administration, which are consistent with those expressed by 7th Circuit Judge Diane Sykes (also on Trump’s potential Supreme Court list), who wrote a dissenting opinion in the Hively case.

 

Why does the Trump Administration have a strong interest in a case between private parties? Because Title VII has provisions banning sex discrimination in the federal workforce, and because the president’s political base and the Republicans in Congress stand in opposition to outlawing sexual orientation discrimination.  This is clear from the failure of Republican legislators to co-sponsor the Equality Act, a bill that would amend Title VII to add sexual orientation and gender identity or expression to the statutory list of forbidden grounds of employment discrimination.  A few Republicans were co-sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a narrower bill that was pending in Congress from the mid-1990s through Obama’s first term until it was supplanted by the Equality Act, but not enough to call that bipartisan legislation.  The Employment Non-Discrimination Act came up for floor votes once in each house of Congress but in different sessions of Congress.  On both of those occasions it received few votes from Republican legislators, and their party’s platform never endorsed it.

 

The Justice Department’s brief, noting the EEOC’s position in the case, states that “the EEOC is not speaking for the United States and its position about the scope of Title VII is entitled to no deference beyond its power to persuade.” And, almost needless to say, the Justice Department under the outspokenly anti-gay Jeff Sessions is not persuaded by any of the EEOC’s arguments.  The brief argues that Congress did not intend to ban sexual orientation discrimination in 1964 when it enacted Title VII and that should be the end of the matter.  The failure of Congress to approve any amendment to add sexual orientation to the law is cited as evidence of continuing legislative intent, and the brief argues that only Congress can change the law.  It argues at length that the theories embraced by the EEOC and the 7th Circuit are mistaken interpretations of the Supreme Court’s rulings on sex stereotyping and associational discrimination, and that there is a distinct difference between sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination, despite statements by many federal judges that they have difficulty drawing the line between the two.

 

The 2nd Circuit will not be oblivious to the political nature of the government’s opposition.  The concurring opinion in the Christiansen case, written by 2nd Circuit Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, virtually endorsed the EEOC’s interpretation of the statute while calling for the circuit to reconsider its earlier precedents.  And a majority of the judges who will sit on the en banc panel were appointed by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama and have generally taken a more liberal approach to interpreting Title VII.  The circuit’s earlier precedents that are being reconsidered were issued by three-judge panels at a time when the arguments for allowing sexual orientation discrimination claims were not nearly as well developed as they have been in recent years, and the circuit has accepted the associational discrimination theory in a race discrimination case after those earlier cases were decided.  It is likely to see that theory’s applicability here, as the district judges have commented.  However, if the Supreme Court decides to grant Lambda Legal’s petition to review the 11th Circuit case, it is possible that the 2nd Circuit will hold up on deciding the Zarda appeal until the Supreme Court has spoken.  Interesting timing issues will arise this fall.  The 2nd Circuit argument is scheduled for late in September, before the Supreme Court will begin its fall term and start announcing whether it will grant petitions for review filed over the summer.

 

The brief filed by Altitude Express in opposition to the appeal has raised significant jurisdictional arguments that would give the 2nd Circuit a way out of deciding this appeal on the merits, if the judges are so inclined.  That brief argues that when he filed his initial discrimination charge with the EEOC, Donald Zarda expressly disclaimed making a sexual orientation discrimination claim under Title VII, relying instead on the allegation that he suffered discrimination for failing to comply with sex stereotypes.  That was the theory he initially presented in his federal court complaint under Title VII as well, and it was dismissed by the trial judge, who opined that Zarda’s factual allegations were not sufficient for a sex stereotyping claim.  Zarda only pressed a sexual orientation claim under the New York State Human Rights Law.  Thus, Altitude Express argues, he cannot now argue for a sexual orientation discrimination claim under Title VII, because the statute requires that any claim first be presented to the administrative agency, and further that any ruling by the court of appeals on that question would be, in effect, an advisory opinion, as the jury has already ruled against his sexual orientation discrimination claim.  There’s no telling how the 2nd Circuit will respond to these arguments, but one suspects that if they had serious doubts about jurisdiction, they would not have granted the en banc petition.

 

In the meantime, however, it is clear that if the Supreme Court grants review in the 11th Circuit Evans case, the federal government, represented by the Solicitor General, will come into the case against the plaintiff, and by then the EEOC will be in Republican control and will probably not be filing a separate brief.  Once again, the Trump Administration is actively disavowing the LGBT-supportive stance that the candidate claimed during the election last year.  The brief was filed just as Trump was tweeting his decision to bar transgender people from military service, which seemed no coincidence.