Lesbian Worker Wins Settlement in “First of its Kind” Job Discrimination Case
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced yesterday that it has reached a landmark settlement in one of its first lawsuits claiming illegal employment discrimination on the basis of anti-LGBT harassment.
The EEOC had sued IFCO Systems, Inc., a pallet services company, in early March on behalf of the company’s former employee Yolanda Boone, a forklift operator and lesbian woman. The suit alleged that Boone had been subjected to harassment from her supervisor on the basis of her sexual orientation and that IFCO Systems fired her for complaining about the harassment to management and the Human Resources department. The lawsuit was one of the first brought by the EEOC to claim workplace harassment based on sexual orientation was illegal under federal law, as a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
As part of the settlement, IFCO Systems will pay Boone $182,200 in backpay and damages, as well as make a $20,000 contribution to the Human Rights Campaign. While the settlement doesn’t set legal precedent, the outcome is a victory in advancing workplace protections for LGBTQ workers.
Background: What Led to the Lawsuit
Per the complaint, Boone began working as a forklift operator for IFCO Systems in September 2013, and began taking night shifts a few months later, during which she worked under supervisor Charles Lowry:
“Almost as soon as Boone began working the night shift, Lowry began harassing Boone on a weekly basis, making comments such as “I want to turn you back into a woman;” “I want you to like men again;” “You would look good in a dress;” “Are you a girl or a man?” and “You don’t have any breasts.” He also quoted biblical passages stating that a man should be with a woman and not a woman with a woman. On several occasions, he would grab his crotch while staring at Boone.”
After enduring the behavior for weeks, Boone reported it to another supervisor, who took no action, and then to the General Manager and Human Resources department. In response, management called Boone into a meeting in which they demanded Boone’s resignation, handing Boone a typed letter giving her resignation they demanded she sign. When she refused, the company fired her.
Title VII, Sexual Orientation Discrimination, and Sex Discrimination
At the federal level, workplace anti-discrimination law is governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any individual “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Sexual orientation is conspicuously absent; there is no federal law that explicitly forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In order to circumvent this and combat job discrimination against LGBTQ people, the EEOC ruled in 2012 that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. In a decision from last year, the agency stated three primary reasons explain why (paraphrased quoting from here):
(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.
This opened the door for the EEOC to bring claims under Title VII against discriminating employers on behalf of LGBTQ employees. (The EEOC is the federal agency tasked with enforcing Title VII, which is why it brings such lawsuits on the worker’s behalf. Workers can also sue their employers themselves under Title VII if the EEOC decides not to bring a case on their behalf, by obtaining a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC). On March 1 of this year, the EEOC did so for the first time, bringing two cases, including Yolanda Boone’s, in which the agency argued that the harassment the employees in the cases had suffered because of their sexual orientation was a form of illegal sex discrimination. Boone’s is the first to be resolved, in the landmark settlement described below.
The Settlement
Per Reuters Legal, the terms of the settlement breaks down as follows: $7,200 in backpay and $175,000 in damages to Boone, $20,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (which must be pleasantly surprised, seeing as they were not a party to the case), and further equitable relief provided by IFCO Systems: the company will retain an expert on LGBTQ issues to develop a workplace training program, provide a toll-free hotline number for worker complaints, and issue Boone a letter of recommendation.
The contribution to the Human Rights Campaign is interesting, as it indicates IFCO Systems may have been motivated to settle as much by the desire to avoid the bad publicity of the case as the desire to minimize the damages. In a statement, the company stated that the decision to settle rather than litigate the case demonstrated that the company has “long recognized the value of preventing sexual orientation discrimination and the benefit of ensuring diversity in the workplace.” However, as part of the terms of the settlement IFCO Systems did not admit to discriminating against or retaliating against Boone.
Conclusion
While the settlement is exciting and a victory for LGBTQ workers’ rights, it is important to remember that as a settlement, there is no formal holding from the court creating a common law precedent. The EEOC’s ruling from last year that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination is an internal interpretation of Title VII, and not something the federal courts have to follow. As of right now, no federal appeals court has issued a ruling adopting the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII, though the issue is currently being litigated in the 2nd, 7th, an 11th circuits.
As such, though the settlement bodes well for future litigation under Title VII for LGBTQ rights, prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should still be explicitly written into federal law. For example, the Human Rights Campaign itself promotes the Equality Act, which would amend Title VII (and other parts of the Civil Rights Act) to explicitly prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Though such an act is unlikely to be passed by the current Republican-controlled House of Representatives, it should remain high on the agenda for workers’ rights advocates and LGBTQ rights advocates. In a country where 32 states still have no explicit state-level protections against discrimination for LGBTQ workers, the need for federal protections for such workers is and will remain severe. In the meantime, while Yolanda Boone’s settlement may be the first of its kind, it will hopefully be the first of many.
