Prudent employers will make sure their policies cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court issued two opinions that could change the viability of LGBT discrimination claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Previously, Missouri courts had ruled that MHRA discrimination claims could not be based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Although neither of last week’s opinions expressly hold that sexual orientation or gender identity are covered by the MHRA, both opinions create a framework under which those claims can survive dismissal based on sex discrimination.
In Lampley v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, the plaintiff alleged in a charge of discrimination that he was a gay man who had been harassed at work because he did not “exhibit the stereotypical attributes of how a male should appear and behave.” The Missouri Commission dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction because the Commission concluded that the plaintiff was alleging discrimination based on his sexual orientation, which was not covered by the MHRA.
In ruling that the Commission’s dismissal was improper because the plaintiff had stated a sex discrimination claim, four of the seven judges wrote opinions and none of the four opinions were joined by a majority of the judges. This means that the “binding” part of the decision is quite narrow, and that much of the discussion in the four opinions is not. None of the opinions voted to overturn a 2015 opinion from the Missouri Court of Appeals holding that discrimination based on sexual orientation was not covered by the MHRA.
Instead, a three-judge plurality considered federal cases and a Commission regulation prohibiting the “refusal to hire an individual based on stereotyped characteristics of the sexes.” Based on these authorities, the plurality concluded,
[A]n employee who suffers an adverse employment decision based on sex-based stereotypical attitudes of how a member of the employee’s sex should act can support an inference of unlawful sex discrimination. Sexual orientation is incidental and irrelevant to sex stereotyping. Sex discrimination is discrimination, it is prohibited by the Act, and an employee may demonstrate this discrimination through evidence of sexual stereotyping.
Two concurring judges did not agree with the plurality’s analysis on the issue of sex stereotyping. According to the concurring judges, there is no separate sex-stereotyping claim under the MHRA—there is only sex discrimination. Sex stereotyping is simply a type of evidence that could be used to prove a sex discrimination claim, but it is not a distinct claim of sex discrimination. But the five plurality and concurring judges agreed that plaintiff had properly stated a claim for sex discrimination because he had alleged ultimate facts that, if taken as true, demonstrated that he had been subjected to unlawful employment practices based on his sex (male).
In R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District, the plaintiff alleged that he was “a female to male transgender teenager who was born as a female child and transitioned to living as male” and that he was not allowed to use the boys’ locker room or bathrooms at his school based on his sex. The school district moved to dismiss the case, arguing that discrimination based on gender identity was not covered by the MHRA. The trial court granted the motion. In reversing the trial court’s dismissal, as in Lampley, the majority of the judges on the Missouri Supreme Court did not base their ruling on whether gender identity discrimination was covered.
Instead, the majority engaged in a straightforward sex discrimination analysis to determine whether the plaintiff had stated a claim. First, the plaintiff had alleged facts demonstrating that he was denied access to the boys’ locker room and restrooms, which are public accommodations under the MHRA. Second, the plaintiff pleaded that his “legal sex is male,” which was sufficient to plead that he was within a protected class. Third, he pled facts demonstrating causation by alleging that he had been denied access to public facilities because of his sex. Accordingly, at the motion to dismiss stage, where the court is required to accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, the Court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim for sex discrimination.
For Missouri employers, there are several takeaways. The Missouri Supreme Court has given employees a road map for pleading LGBT discrimination claims under a sex discrimination theory that will survive a motion to dismiss. But there are limitations to the court’s rulings. Technically, the Court of Appeals ruling that sexual orientation discrimination is not covered by the MHRA is still good law. In addition, in R.M.A. the majority placed great weight on the allegation that the plaintiff’s “legal sex is male.” It is not clear, therefore, whether a transgender individual who has not yet changed their legal sex could state a claim for sex discrimination under R.M.A.’s analysis. Finally, because both cases were decided at the motion to dismiss stage, it is unclear whether either case will ultimately lead to liability for the defendants.
Nonetheless, Missouri employers who have not already done so should update their employment policies to prohibit discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Kansas City and St. Louis, as well as several other Missouri cities, prohibit employment discrimination based on these characteristics.
And, as Robin Shea has written many times before, once-settled interpretations of federal law (that is, whether LGBT discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII) have been overruled or questioned by a number of courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately agree to resolve that issue.
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010