Case Law Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.

Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (134) Cited in (238) Related (5)

Gregory Antollino, New York, NY (Stephen Bergstein, Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, Chester, NY, on the brief ), for PlaintiffsAppellants.

Saul D. Zabell, Zabell & Associates, P.C., Bohemia, NY, for DefendantsAppellees.

Jeremy Horowitz (James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, and Anne Noel Occhialino, Senior Appellate Attorney, on the brief ), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Gregory R. Nevins (Michael D.B. Kavey, Attorney at Law, Brooklyn, NY; Omar Gonzalez–Pagan and Sharon M. McGowan, on the brief ), Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Atlanta, GA, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Hashim M. Mooppan (Chad A. Readler and Tom Wheeler, Acting Assistant Attorneys General, Charles W. Scarborough and Stephen R. Marcus, Attorneys, on the brief ), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America, in support of DefendantsAppellees.

Adam K. Mortara, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, court-appointed Amicus Curiae in support of DefendantsAppellees.

Erin Beth Harrist and Christopher Dunn, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY; Fatima Goss Graves, National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC; Ria Tabacco Mar, Leslie Cooper, James D. Esseks, Lenora M. Lapidus, and Gillian L. Thomas, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union; New York Civil Liberties Union; National Women's Law Center; 9to5, National Association of Working Women; A Better Balance; California Women's Law Center; Equal Rights Advocates; Feminist Majority Foundation; Gender Justice; Legal Voice; National Organization for Women (NOW) Foundation; National Partnership for Women & Families; Southwest Women's Law Center; Women Employed; Women's Law Center of Maryland, Inc.; and Women's Law Project, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Richard E. Casagrande, Robert T. Reilly, Wendy M. Star, and Christopher Lewis, New York State United Teachers, Latham, NY, for Amicus Curiae New York State United Teachers, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Richard Blum and Heidi Cain, The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae The Legal Aid Society, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Alice O'Brien, Eric A. Harrington, and Mary E. Deweese, National Education Association, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae The National Education Association, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Mary Bonauto, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Boston, MA; Christopher Stoll, National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, CA; Alan E. Shoenfeld, David M. Lehn, and Christopher D. Dodge, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, for Amici Curiae GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders ("GLAD") and National Center for Lesbian Rights ("NCLR"), in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Thomas W. Burt, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA; Sigismund L. Sapinski, Jr., Sun Life Financial (U.S.) Services Company, Inc., Windsor, CT; Todd Anten, Justin T. Reinheimer, and Cory D. Struble, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae AdRoll, Inc.; Ben & Jerry's; Beterment; Boston Community Capital; Brandwatch; CBS Corporation; Citrix Systems, Inc.; City Winery; Davis Steadman Ford & Mace, LLC; DoorDash, Inc.; Dropbox, Inc.; Eastern Bank; Edelman; FiftyThree, Inc.; Freedom for All Americans Education Fund; Google Inc.; Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation; Gusto; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc.; IAC/InterActiveCorp; IHS Markit Ltd.; Indiegogo; INUS Group LLC; Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP; Kargo; KEO Marketing Inc.; Kickstarter, PBC; Levi Strauss & Co.; Linden Lab; Lyft, Inc.; Mapbox, Inc.; National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce; OBOX Solutions; On 3 Public Relations; Physician's Computer Company; Pinterest; Puma Springs Vineyards; Quora Inc.; S&P Global Inc.; Salesforce; Shutterstock, Inc.; Spotify; Thumbtack; TodayTix; Trust Company of Vermont; Vermont Gynecology; Viacom, Inc.; and Wealthfront Inc., in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Peter T. Barbur, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Sen. Jeffrey A. Merkley, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sen. Cory A. Booker, and Rep. David N. Cicilline, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Matthew Skinner, LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York ("LeGaL"), New York, NY, for Amici Curiae LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York ("LeGaL"), Anti–Defamation League, Asian American Bar Association of New York, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Hispanic National Bar Association, Legal Aid at Work, National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, New York County Lawyers' Association, and Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, Andrew W. Amend, Senior Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel, State of New York, New York, NY; George Jepsen, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT; Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, State of Vermont, Montpelier, VT, for Amici Curiae State of New York, State of Connecticut, and State of Vermont, in support of PlaintiffsAppellants.

Joseph W. Miller, U.S. Justice Foundation, Ramona, CA; William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, Robert J. Olson, and Jeremiah L. Morgan, William J. Olson, P.C., Vienna, VA, for Amici Curiae Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Public Advocate of the United States, and United States Justice Foundation, in support of DefendantsAppellees.

Kimberlee Wood Colby, Christian Legal Society, Springfield, VA, for Amici Curiae Christian Legal Society and National Association of Evangelicals, in support of DefendantsAppellees.

Before: Katzmann, Chief Judge, Jacobs, Cabranes, Pooler, Sack, Raggi, Hall, Livingston, Lynch, Chin, Lohier, Carney, and Droney, Circuit Judges.*

Katzmann, C.J., filed the majority opinion in which Hall, Chin, Carney, and Droney, JJ., joined in full, Jacobs, J., joined as to Parts I and II.B.3, Pooler, J., joined as to all but Part II.B.1.b, Sack, J., joined as to Parts I, II.A, II.B.3, and II.C, and Lohier, J., joined as to Parts I, II.A, and II.B.1.a.

Jacobs, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Cabranes, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Sack, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Lohier, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Lynch, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Livingston, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III.

Livingston, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Raggi, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Katzmann, Chief Judge:

Donald Zarda,1 a skydiving instructor, brought a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") alleging that he was fired from his job at Altitude Express, Inc., because he failed to conform to male sex stereotypes by referring to his sexual orientation. Although it is well-settled that gender stereotyping violates Title VII's prohibition on discrimination "because of ... sex," we have previously held that sexual orientation discrimination claims, including claims that being gay or lesbian constitutes nonconformity with a gender stereotype, are not cognizable under Title VII.2 See Simonton v. Runyon , 232 F.3d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2000) ; see also Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble , 398 F.3d 211, 217–23 (2d Cir. 2005).

At the time Simonton and Dawson were decided, and for many years since, this view was consistent with the consensus among our sister circuits and the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission"). See, e.g. , Kalich v. AT&T Mobility, LLC , 679 F.3d 464, 471 (6th Cir. 2012) ; Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. , 579 F.3d 285, 289 (3d Cir. 2009) ; Medina v.Income Support Div. , 413 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 2005) ; Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. , 224 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir. 2000) ; Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. , 194 F.3d 252, 259 (1st Cir. 1999) ;3 Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc. , 99 F.3d 138, 143 (4th Cir. 1996) ; Williamson v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. , 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp. , 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); see also Johnson v. Frank , EEOC Decision No. 01911827, 1991 WL 1189760, at *3 (Dec. 19, 1991). But legal doctrine evolves and in 2015 the EEOC held, for the first time, that "sexual orientation is inherently a 'sex-based consideration;' accordingly an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII." Baldwin v. Foxx , EEOC Decision No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641, at *5 (July 15, 2015) (quoting Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins , 490 U.S. 228, 242, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (plurality opinion) ). Since then, two circuits have revisited the question of whether claims of sexual orientation discrimination are viable under Title VII. In March 2017, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit declined to recognize such a claim, concluding that it was bound by Blum , 597 F.2d at 938, which "ha[s] not been overruled by a clearly contrary opinion of the Supreme Court or of [the Eleventh Circuit] sitting en banc ." Evans v. Ga. Reg'l Hosp. , 850 F.3d 1248, 1257 (11th Cir.), cert. denied , ...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2019
Forkin v. Local 804 Union
"...of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ...."); see also Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 148 (2d Cir. 2018) (stating that Title VII "did not protect those discriminated against ... on the basis of age or disability; that req..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 2021
United States v. Scott
"...And The Constitution 44-45 (2016).5 Herbert H. Clark, Arenas Of Language Use 372 (1993).6 See Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 144 n.7 (2d Cir. 2018) (Lynch, J., dissenting) ("Legislation cannot sensibly be interpreted by stringing together dictionary synonyms of each word an..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2018
Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance
"...us that the cart of legislative history is pulled by the plain text, not the other way around." Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 137 (2d Cir. 2018) (Lohier, J. Concurring). The reading proposed by defendants is unwarranted.The FACEA's language counsels for an expansive interp..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2018
United States v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
"...(1973). See Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble , 398 F.3d 211, 216-17 (2d Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (en banc) (overruling Dawson in part and holding that sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2020
Antoine v. Brooklyn Maids 26, Inc.
"...of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment."); Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 114 (2d Cir. 2018) ("Today, the Supreme Court and lower courts ‘uniformly’ recognize sexual harassment claims as a violation of Titl..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses – 2022
Deposing & examining the plaintiff
"...on sexual orientation constitutes “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 113 (2nd Cir. 2018). Chief Judge Katzmann wrote: We now conclude that sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by ..."
Document | Núm. 68-6, 2019
"a Fresh Look": Title Vii's New Promise for Lgbt Discrimination Protection Post-hively
"...supra note 20.22. Hively, 853 F.3d at 340-41.23. Baldwin v. Foxx, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641, at *4 (July 15, 2015).24. 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018).25. See id. at 108. 26. 42 U.S.C. § 2000 (2012); see Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Health & Hu..."
Document | Part V. Discrimination in employment – 2018
Sex discrimination
"...covered by Title VII. Hively v. Ivy Tech. Cmty. Coll. of Ind ., 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc); Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2nd Cir. Feb. 26, 2018) (en banc). Although this position has not been adopted by the Fifth Circuit as yet, a Texas district court followed ..."
Document | Vol. 132 Núm. 4, February 2023 – 2023
Sex Equality's Irreconcilable Differences.
"...about how women and men are as well as gross generalizations about how women and men should be. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100, 119 (2d Cir. 2018) (stating that sex stereotypes include judgments about "both how the sexes are and how they should (80.) To be clear, court decisi..."
Document | Vol. 132 Núm. 4, February 2023 – 2023
Protecting Transgender Youth After Bostock: Sex Classification, Sex Stereotypes, and the Future of Equal Protection.
"...arguing against textualism as a method). (20.) See, e.g., Lund, supra note 15, at 167. (21.) See, e.g., Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100,112-13 (2d Cir. 2018) (basing the decision that sexual-orientation discrimination violates Title VII on textual, sex-stereotype, and associat..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
Labor and Employment Issues Facing the Healthcare Industry
"...taking adverse action because an employee’s behavior or appearance fails to conform to gender stereotypes.”); Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100, 107 (2d Cir. 2018) (“[I]t is well-settled that gender stereotyping violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination ‘because of . . ..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Steptoe & Johnson's First Look Winter 2018 Insurance Newsletter
"...Coll. of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017). 19 Id. at 341. 20. Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. at 351. 23 Id. at 350-51. 24 Zarda v. Altitude Express, 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018); EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 25 Evans v. Georgia Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
Has the Fourth Circuit Set the Stage for LGBTQ Protections Under Title VII?
"...taken this theory to its logical next step. Most recently, the Second Circuit decided in Zarda ex rel. Zarda v. Altitude Express Incorporated d/b/a Skydive Long Island, 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), that sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. In a..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, And Planning For 2019
"...continue to wrestle with the scope of sex discrimination (i.e., is it solely gender-based?) under Title VII. (See, Zarda v. Altitude Express, 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), in which the court, en banc, considered whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation su..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
Bostock v. Clayton County and Implications for Title VII Litigation
"...853 F.3d 339, 351-52 (7th Cir. 2017). The Second Circuit and Sixth Circuit reached similar conclusions. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F. 3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018); E.E.O.C. v. R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F. 3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018). The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses – 2022
Deposing & examining the plaintiff
"...on sexual orientation constitutes “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 113 (2nd Cir. 2018). Chief Judge Katzmann wrote: We now conclude that sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by ..."
Document | Núm. 68-6, 2019
"a Fresh Look": Title Vii's New Promise for Lgbt Discrimination Protection Post-hively
"...supra note 20.22. Hively, 853 F.3d at 340-41.23. Baldwin v. Foxx, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641, at *4 (July 15, 2015).24. 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018).25. See id. at 108. 26. 42 U.S.C. § 2000 (2012); see Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Health & Hu..."
Document | Part V. Discrimination in employment – 2018
Sex discrimination
"...covered by Title VII. Hively v. Ivy Tech. Cmty. Coll. of Ind ., 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc); Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2nd Cir. Feb. 26, 2018) (en banc). Although this position has not been adopted by the Fifth Circuit as yet, a Texas district court followed ..."
Document | Vol. 132 Núm. 4, February 2023 – 2023
Sex Equality's Irreconcilable Differences.
"...about how women and men are as well as gross generalizations about how women and men should be. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100, 119 (2d Cir. 2018) (stating that sex stereotypes include judgments about "both how the sexes are and how they should (80.) To be clear, court decisi..."
Document | Vol. 132 Núm. 4, February 2023 – 2023
Protecting Transgender Youth After Bostock: Sex Classification, Sex Stereotypes, and the Future of Equal Protection.
"...arguing against textualism as a method). (20.) See, e.g., Lund, supra note 15, at 167. (21.) See, e.g., Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100,112-13 (2d Cir. 2018) (basing the decision that sexual-orientation discrimination violates Title VII on textual, sex-stereotype, and associat..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2019
Forkin v. Local 804 Union
"...of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ...."); see also Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 148 (2d Cir. 2018) (stating that Title VII "did not protect those discriminated against ... on the basis of age or disability; that req..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit – 2021
United States v. Scott
"...And The Constitution 44-45 (2016).5 Herbert H. Clark, Arenas Of Language Use 372 (1993).6 See Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 144 n.7 (2d Cir. 2018) (Lynch, J., dissenting) ("Legislation cannot sensibly be interpreted by stringing together dictionary synonyms of each word an..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2018
Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance
"...us that the cart of legislative history is pulled by the plain text, not the other way around." Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 137 (2d Cir. 2018) (Lohier, J. Concurring). The reading proposed by defendants is unwarranted.The FACEA's language counsels for an expansive interp..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2018
United States v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
"...(1973). See Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble , 398 F.3d 211, 216-17 (2d Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (en banc) (overruling Dawson in part and holding that sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2020
Antoine v. Brooklyn Maids 26, Inc.
"...of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment."); Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , 883 F.3d 100, 114 (2d Cir. 2018) ("Today, the Supreme Court and lower courts ‘uniformly’ recognize sexual harassment claims as a violation of Titl..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
Labor and Employment Issues Facing the Healthcare Industry
"...taking adverse action because an employee’s behavior or appearance fails to conform to gender stereotypes.”); Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100, 107 (2d Cir. 2018) (“[I]t is well-settled that gender stereotyping violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination ‘because of . . ..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Steptoe & Johnson's First Look Winter 2018 Insurance Newsletter
"...Coll. of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017). 19 Id. at 341. 20. Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. at 351. 23 Id. at 350-51. 24 Zarda v. Altitude Express, 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018); EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 25 Evans v. Georgia Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
Has the Fourth Circuit Set the Stage for LGBTQ Protections Under Title VII?
"...taken this theory to its logical next step. Most recently, the Second Circuit decided in Zarda ex rel. Zarda v. Altitude Express Incorporated d/b/a Skydive Long Island, 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), that sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. In a..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, And Planning For 2019
"...continue to wrestle with the scope of sex discrimination (i.e., is it solely gender-based?) under Title VII. (See, Zarda v. Altitude Express, 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), in which the court, en banc, considered whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation su..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
Bostock v. Clayton County and Implications for Title VII Litigation
"...853 F.3d 339, 351-52 (7th Cir. 2017). The Second Circuit and Sixth Circuit reached similar conclusions. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F. 3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018); E.E.O.C. v. R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F. 3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018). The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial