People who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, gender queer, and gender non-conforming (LGBTQ+) have strong protections under federal law today. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, education, and healthcare settings, and state and local laws across the country expand upon those protections to also prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and housing. This toolbox of federal, state, and local laws helps to ensure LGBTQ+ people have recourse for discrimination they may face based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “sex,” which the Supreme Court ruled in its June 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County must also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Whereas LGBTQ+ employees used to rely on a patchwork of state and local laws alone for protection against employment discrimination, equal employment opportunity for LGBTQ+ workers is now the law of the land. Courts have interpreted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, consistent with Bostock, meaning LGBTQ+ students are also prohibited from discrimination in schools. And by incorporating Title IX into Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, Congress ensured that healthcare providers, insurers, and other covered healthcare entities who receive federal funds are also barred from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
LGBTQ+ people are also often protected against discrimination at the state and local levels. In D.C., the District of Columbia Human Rights Act protects against discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, public accommodations, education, and employment. Virginia’s Fair Housing Law and the Virginia Human Rights Act provide these same protections for LGBTQ+ Virginians. This is also true of Maryland, where state law—and local codes in Prince George’s County, Howard County, and Montgomery County—similarly prohibits sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.
We believe that no employee should be fired, shortchanged, or treated differently by an employer because of who they are and whom they love. That is why we fight to ensure our clients have a fair chance to earn a living in a workplace free from discrimination.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawyers in Washington D.C.
Correia & Puth attorneys work to hold institutions accountable when they use a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity as a factor against them. We represent LGBTQ+ people subjected to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity under federal, state, and local laws, including Title VII, Section 1557, and Title IX. This includes negotiating resolutions and filing complaints in court or with government agencies on behalf of LGBTQ+ people who experienced discrimination. We have the experience and commitment to seek justice for you against sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination? You Have Rights!
Federal civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ+) people are currently strong. Federal law is interpreted to protect against sexual orientation discrimination in employment, and these protections extend to education and healthcare. In Maryland, Virginia, and D.C., state and local law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, public accommodations, and employment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “sex,” which the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County must also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in two cases—Bostock (in which a child services coordinator was fired for being gay) and Altitude Express v. Zarda (in which a skydiving instructor was fired for being gay)—that “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual . . . fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” interpreting Title VII’s prohibition on “sex” discrimination to also bar discrimination because of sexual orientation. Whereas lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer + employees used to rely on a patchwork of state and local laws alone for protection against employment discrimination, equal employment opportunity for LGBQ+ workers is now required by federal law. This means that workers across the United States who face employment discrimination based on sexual orientation have recourse under federal law. Employees in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia also may take advantage of state and local laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Following Bostock, courts have held that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 also extends to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Title IX protects students from discrimination in schools. In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the Fourth Circuit, which includes federal courts in Maryland and Virginia, extended Bostock’s reasoning to Title IX. Courts around the country have made similar determinations. Courts have also extended Bostock's reasoning to the Affordable Care Act, which incorporates Title IX and prohibits sex discrimination.
Under the Biden administration, sexual orientation and gender identity are bases for discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. There have not yet been significant court rulings applying Bostock to these other areas of federal law. Court rulings will create stronger protections than the current executive order, which courts are not obligated to respect and which can be quickly reversed by a different presidential administration.
Protections for LGBQ+ people are not as expansive as they should be, and reliance on the Supreme Court to interpret federal law does not provide a failsafe remedy. The Equality Act would amend civil rights statutes to explicitly bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and broaden these civil rights protections to cover federally funded programs and public accommodations, such as retail stores and stadiums. With leadership from civil rights organizations and the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Equality Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2019, and again in February 2021, but has yet to pass in the Senate.
In the years leading up to the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court had generally increased its recognition of other civil rights for LGBQ+ people. As a result of the Court’s overturning section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, federal employment benefits, including those offered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, became available to same-sex married couples. Then in June 2015, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and that no state may abridge that right. These decisions reflect an increased recognition in the courts that LGBQ+ Americans are entitled to equal rights under the law.
Explicit protections against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at the state and local level also continue to grow. The ruling in Bostock has aided this progress, with more state courts interpreting existing prohibitions on sex discrimination to encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As of March 2022, 34 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
In some states, state law may offer different or greater remedies than federal law, increasing options for plaintiffs to seek relief. Maryland’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA), Virginia’s Human Rights Act (VHRA), and D.C.’s Human Rights Act (DCHRA) all prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment, as do many local laws such as those in Prince George’s County, Montgomery County, and Howard County, Maryland. The same is true regarding public accommodations and housing: if you live in Maryland, Virginia, or D.C., it is illegal for places of public accommodation, health care providers, and housing providers to discriminate against you because of your sexual orientation.
Filing a Sexual Orientation Discrimination Claim? We Can Help.
If you are filing a charge of discrimination based on sexual orientation with the EEOC or a state or local agency, you should identify the discrimination as discrimination based on “sex” if the form does not provide a specific notation for sexual orientation discrimination. If you believe you may have a claim of sexual orientation discrimination in education, housing, health care, or public accommodations, you may have both administrative and court-based options. Correia & Puth can help you assess your rights and possible courses of action.
Contact Correia & Puth for Employee Rights Legal Assistance!
Whether you are currently suffering from harassment or discrimination on the basis of your sexual orientation or have been subjected to it in the past, Correia & Puth, PLLC can help you seek justice and remedy the rights violated. We work zealously to represent clients to seek a fair and just resolution with employers. Please call us at 202-602-6500 or contact us today.
Practice Areas
It takes courage to fight back against those who discriminate.Contact us to see how we can help you.