Title VII

2 posts

Harris Funeral Homes: A Proposed Tool for Claiming Trans Rights that is Dead on Arrival

By Joe Sullivan

In June 2020, the Supreme Court extended protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to LGBTQ Americans in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. This historic decision presents the LGBTQ community with the opportunity to claim rights under a wide range of laws. This Note will consider implications of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bostock on future challenges to transgender health care discrimination by employers. Defining “sex” as including “sexual orientation” has the potential to make great progress towards ending trans health care discrimination. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), however, stands in the way as a formidable obstacle. RFRA allows corporations to engage in conduct that would otherwise be unlawful, if those laws conflict with their religious beliefs. Unless those laws further a compelling state interest in the least restrictive manner, RFRA provides a loophole. Closely held religious corporations are still able to employ a RFRA-based defense against Title VII claims, narrowing the scope of Title VII rights.

In Part I, this Note provides a background of the current state of trans health care coverage denial in the United States and notes the inherent conflicts between RFRA and Title VII. In Part II, it provides an explanation of the three cases which were consolidated by the Court in Bostock. Part III then analyzes Bostock’s majority opinion and Justice Alito’s dissent to highlight the uncertainty left in the wake of Bostock. Next, Part IV examines scholars’ optimism that Harris Funeral Homes is a guide for claiming future LGBTQ rights. Finally, Part V argues instead that Harris Funeral Homes is a weak tool to use for future litigation, concluding that a legislative solution can best secure trans health care rights.

Download Article

Blacklisting Allowed? Whether the False Claims Act Protects Former Employees from Retaliation

By Hunter Baehren

Employers commonly blacklist whistleblowers.  Despite its frequency, blacklisting remains unaddressed in many federal whistleblower statutes.  These statutes typically contain antiretaliation provisions protecting “employees,” but since victims of blacklisting are former employees, protection under federal law is uncertain.  In Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., the Supreme Court interpreted the term “employee” in the antiretaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include former employees.  Courts disagree, however, on Robinson’s relevance in interpreting the term “employee” in the antiretaliation provisions of other federal whistleblower statutes.  A circuit split has emerged exemplifying this tension: the Sixth Circuit recently found that the term “employee” in the False Claims Act’s antiretaliation provision includes former employees.  The Tenth Circuit previously ruled otherwise.  This Note offers the following contributions: (1) this circuit split reflects a broader disagreement on the role of Robinson in interpreting antiretaliation provisions, and (2) the in pari materia rule can resolve the split, as well as provide courts a clear path to applying Robinson to antiretaliation provisions in other federal statutes.

Download Article