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.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that a federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC, ruling that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On March 1, EEOC filed the U.S. government's first sex discrimination lawsuit based on sexual orientation, U.S. EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center (Case 2:16-cv-00225-CB), in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. In its complaint, EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to sex discrimination in the form of harassment because of his sexual orientation and then forced to quit his job rather than endure further harassment. In response to EEOC's lawsuit, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In a decision issued on Nov. 4 by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, the court denied Scott Medical Health Center's motion to dismiss EEOC's case. In its ruling, the court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of discrimination "because of sex," which is barred by Title VII. Applying decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination includes adverse treatment of workers based on "sex stereotypes," i.e. pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think, the federal court stated, "There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality."
The federal court then concluded: "That someone can be subjected to a barrage of insults, humiliation, hostility and/or changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, based upon nothing more than the aggressor's view of what it means to be a man or a woman, is exactly the evil Title VII was designed to eradicate." While the federal court made a legal ruling in the case, to date there has been no trial or factual finding whether discrimination occurred.
The court's decision is consistent with EEOC's reading of Title VII's sex discrimination ban. As the federal law enforcement agency charged with interpreting and enforcing Title VII, EEOC has previously concluded that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual orientation is prohibited sex discrimination. On July 15, 2015, 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 (July 15, 2015).
In that case, 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.