Amy Howe

Jun 1 2018

Justices asked to weigh in on protection for gay employees

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating “because of” sex. On Tuesday, a New York sky-diving company asked the justices to review a ruling by a federal appeals court that the law applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The lower courts are divided on this question, which the company describes as “emblematic of the zeitgeist in American conscience and law respecting gender and sex.” The justices are likely to consider the company’s petition when they return from their summer recess in late September; if they decide to take up the case, it could be argued next winter, with a decision by the end of June 2019.

The dispute arose when the company, now known as Altitude Express, fired Donald Zarda, an instructor with the company. Zarda went to federal court, where he contended that he was terminated because he was gay, a violation of (among other things) Title VII. The company maintained that it let Zarda go after receiving several complaints about his inappropriate behavior, but the trial court threw out that claim, reasoning that Title VII does not allow claims alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. On appeal, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed that holding. It ruled that Title VII does apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation because such discrimination “is a subset of sex discrimination.”

Altitude Express went to the Supreme Court this week, asking the justices to take up its case. The justices had turned down a similar request late last year, in a case filed by a woman who alleged that she had been harassed and passed over for a promotion at her job as a hospital security officer in Georgia. In that case, however, neither the hospital nor the individual employees named in the lawsuit had participated in the proceedings in the lower courts, and they had told the Supreme Court that they would continue to stay out of the case even if review were granted, which may have made the justices reluctant to review the case on the merits.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies