The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a case against a transportation service company that the EEOC had alleged discriminated against its employees due to their sex and sexual orientation.  The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that the company subjected four of its female employees to discriminatory and disparaging comments and actions.  For example, the owner called these employees "f*cking lesbians" and "fat ugly b*tches."  He also told them that he hated dealing with women and that "women like [them]" would be "killed in [his] country."  This harassment resulted in all four women's employment being terminated on the same day.  When terminating their employment, the owner announced to the entire company that all of the lesbians were fired.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to their sex or sexual orientation, prohibits harassment due to these protected classes, and prohibits retaliation for complaining about discrimination on this basis.  See EEOC v. Sandia Transportation, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00274-MV-GJF (D.N.M.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement agreement with a company to resolve a charge of discrimination in which the employee had claimed that the company discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation.  The employee alleged that Resource Environment Services subjected him to a hostile work environment and then refused to return him to work because of his sexual orientation.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to their sexual orientation.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently recognized sexual orientation discrimination as a protected class pursuant to Title VII.  The EEOC and the employer reached a settlement agreement through the EEOC's conciliation process.  See https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-and-resourceful-environmental-services-agree-conciliate-sexual-orientation-charge.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently reached a settlement with a company that the EEOC claimed had harassed one of its employees so badly that it forced him to quit.  The employee, a sales consultant, was allegedly subjected to constant verbal harassment based on race, sexual orientation, and a disability.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex (including sexual orientation) and race.  The alleged conduct also violations the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability.  See EEOC v. Baccarat, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-02918 (S.D.N.Y.).

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that firing employees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’s sex.  Title VII applies to most employers in the United States with fifteen or more employees.  The Court ruled that when employers fire employees who are homosexual or transgender, that employer “fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.  Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”  The Court reasoned that it is not possible for an employer to make an employment decision based on an employee’s sexual orientation without considering sex.  Since 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has forbidden employers from discriminating against its employees because of their sex.  Simply put, when Title VII applies, employers cannot fire an employee because they are gay, lesbian, or transgender.  This applies even to employment decisions that occurred prior to the date of the Supreme Court’s opinion.  The full opinion can be found at this link:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf