Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Meaning of 'Sex'<br><i><font size="-1">LGBTQ Rights Under the Legal Microsope</i><br><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</font></i>
Last month, we discussed the fact that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender student in Virginia, and his attempt to use men's restrooms and locker-room facilities in his school district. The critical issue in the case involves the U.S. Department of Education's (DOE) interpretation of a federal prohibition on sex discrimination in schools. The DOE concluded that the term “sex” includes gender identity and sexual orientation, initially permitting Grimm the access he desired. After his county school board implemented a policy in direct contrast to the DOE's interpretation, Grimm filed suit in district court, challenging the policy. The case was dismissed, and subsequently appealed by Grimm to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), the Fourth Circuit, giving deference to the DOE's interpretation of federal regulations, overruled the district court's dismissal, and upheld the DOE's interpretation of the meaning of “sex.”
The Supreme Court's decision in this case, Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., is likely to have a significant impact on federal workplace discrimination laws, despite the fact that the case does not implicate the employment relationship, or involve employment law. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb–1(b), may also impact the future of LGBTQ workplace rights. If case law is still largely unsettled as to whether sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the umbrella of “sex,” can religious freedoms be asserted as a reason to deny employment on the basis of LGBTQ status? In EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., No. 14-cv-13710-SFC-DRG (E.D. MI filed 08/18/16), a district court in Michigan recently relied on another, more recent Supreme Court decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 189 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2014), to hold that an employer can terminate a transgender employee using religious freedoms as a valid legal justification. Some state legislatures are also attempting to use Hobby Lobby as a jumping-off point to enact religious freedom laws that might very well implicate the LGBTQ community in that same way. See http://bit.ly/2hlMQeG.
The Gloucester Decision
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?