This website and our authorized third-party service providers use cookies to achieve the purposes described in our Privacy Policy. If you would like to learn more or withdraw your consent to some or all cookies, please review our Privacy Policy. By selecting “I ACCEPT” on this banner, scrolling this page, clicking any link, or continuing to browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.
In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its interpretation that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation, and now it has brought two LGBT discrimination lawsuits to test its interpretation.
"While some federal courts have begun to recognize this right under Title VII, it is critical that all courts do so," explained EEOC General Counsel David Lopez.
In its suit against Scott Medical Health Center, the EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to harassment because of his sexual orientation. The agency said that the male employee's manager repeatedly referred to him using various anti-gay epithets and made other highly offensive comments about his sexuality and sex life. When the employee complained to the clinic director, the director responded that the manager was "just doing his job," and refused to take any action to stop the harassment, according to the suit. After enduring weeks of such comments by his manager, the employee quit rather than endure further harassment.
In its suit against IFCO Systems, the EEOC charged that a lesbian employee was harassed by her supervisor because of her sexual orientation. Her supervisor made numerous comments to her regarding her sexual orientation and appearance, such as "I want to turn you back into a woman" and "You would look good in a dress," according to the suit. At one point, the supervisor blew a kiss at her and circled his tongue at her in a suggestive manner, the EEOC alleged. The employee complained to management and called the employee hotline about the harassment. IFCO fired the female employee just a few days later in retaliation for making the complaints, the EEOC charged.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of sex. As the federal law enforcement agency charged with interpreting and enforcing Title VII, the EEOC concluded that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual orientation is prohibited sex discrimination.
On July 15, 2015, the EEOC, in a federal sector decision, determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex. (See Baldwin v. Dep't of Transp., Appeal No. 0120133080).
In that case, the EEOC explained the reasons why Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation: (1) sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex; (2) sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.
Practical articles on HR, Safety, compliance, and people operations—written for real businesses, not legal textbooks.
U.S. Department of Labor Officially Restores Prior Overtime Exemption Rules
On May 14th, 2026, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced it has officially rescinded the 2024 overtime exemption rules. Specifically, the WHD published a technical amendment to restore previous 2019 regulations that dictated overtime exemptions for...
NLRB General Counsel Takes Action to Tackle Current Case Backlog
On May 6th, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and NLRB General Counsel Crystal Stowe Carey announced the bulk transfer of thousands of labor practice cases. Specifically, this action fulfills an initiative signed by the NLRB General Counsel earlier this year. Overall, the initiative...
Privacy Agency Invites Comments from Businesses on the CCPA’s Usage of Personal Data
Recently, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) issued a call for comments on the current state of personal data collection under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Specifically, the invitation to deliver remarks was issued on April 20th, 2026. The information provided by the...
DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule To Unify Standards Under Federal Labor Laws
In April 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a proposed rule to establish a single, clear standard for determining when joint-employer status applies under three major federal laws: the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal...
DOL Updates Enforcement Approach for Employee Benefit Plans: What Employers Should Know
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced a significant change in its enforcement of employee benefit plan rules. The DOL will now focus more closely on serious violations that harm workers and retirees, meaning compliant employers may face less scrutiny under the updated approach.