Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is alandmarkUnited States Supreme Courtcivil rightscase which ruled that underTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The case involved Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express who had told a female customer of his gay identity to make her more comfortable being attached to him during a skydive. She and her boyfriend later expressed their objections to Altitude, leading to Zarda's dismissal on the claim of misconduct. Zarda filed suit in 2014 on the basis of employment discrimination, and though Zarda died in a parachuting accident that year, his family continued the legal battle.
The District Court ruled in favor of Altitude Express inZarda v. Altitude Express, and this ruling was affirmed by a 3-0 ruling of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. However, the Second Circuit agreed to rehear the caseen banc, and then ruled in a 10-3 decision that Title VII does protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, adding to acircuit split. The Supreme Court accepted Altitude Express's petition and consolidated the case alongsideBostock v. Clayton County, a similar case of sexual orientation discrimination from the Eleventh Circuit but which ruled that Title VII did not cover such discrimination. Oral arguments were heard on October 8, 2019, alongside the caseR.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionwhich dealt with Title VII and employment protections for transgender people.  The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision forBostock, covering all three cases, on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protections do apply to gay and transgender persons.
In 2010, Donald Zarda was fired from his skydiving job at Altitude Express. He had told a customer he was gay to make her more comfortable with being strapped together. The woman's boyfriend later complained to the company that Zarda had inappropriately touched her, and Zarda was fired as a result.In October 2010, the press first reported that Zarda had brought his firing to court and was suing Altitude Express. Altitude Express (inLong Island,New York) claimed Zarda had been fired for alleged "inappropriate behavior in the workplace", with Zarda's lawyer arguing the customer had beenhomophobicand the firing was due to Zarda's sexual orientation.In the case, Altitude argued that Zarda had touched the client inappropriately, backing up the customer's claims. Zarda's family argued that he had no motive to do such a thing, which was consistent with his job and inconsistent with his sexual orientation, the real motive for his firing.Zarda alleged he was fired for failing to conform to the "straight male macho stereotype".Zarda died on October 3, 2014, inSwitzerlandin aBASE jumpingaccidentand the case was continued by his family.
Zarda's case was initially heard inUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of New Yorkin 2014. While the case was in progress, theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) issued a non-binding memo in 2015 that it would treat sexual orientation as covered by Title VII; this aligned with a prior non-binding memo from theDepartment of Justice(DOJ) that it would also treat sexual orientation as protected under Title VII should such cases be presented to them.Despite these federal memos, the District Court summarily ruled in favor of Altitude Express.
Zarda's estate appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. During this case,Donald Trumpbecame president in 2017. Trump took steps to undo many actions previously established by the prior presidentBarack Obama, including instructing the DOJ to reverse its decision on Title VII protections for sexual orientation.In its new memo, the DOJ asserted that while significant cultural shifts had occurred since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Congress had not amended the law in any way, and thus rejected that Title VII protected against sexual orientation discrimination as the DOJ had "substantial and unique interest" to follow the letter of the law. No such change was made from the EEOC's stance, putting these two agencies at odds with each other.The three-judge panel at the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in April 2017, agreeing that sexual orientation was not covered by Title VII, but commented in the opinion that there were "tensions" around how such cases were being handled by the courts.
Zarda's estate sought anen banchearing before the full Second District court, which was granted.In July 2017, the DOJ unexpectedly interceded in the case, arguing in afriend of the court briefthat Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not explicitly cover sexual-orientation discrimination in the workplace.Both the DOJ and the EEOC filed opposing amicus briefs.The DOJ explained its position to the Second Circuit. The brief argued that the law does not define "sex," and that the common "ordinary" usage protected being biologically female or male. TheAmerican Bar Associationannounced that it disagreed with the DOJ's stance, arguing to protect gay rights.The DOJ argued as well that employers were free "to regulate employees' off-the-job sexual behavior" and could discriminate for promiscuity, adultery, or sexual orientation.The EEOC reiterated arguments it had "pioneered" in a case in 2015 that informed theSeventh Circuitopinion on theHively v. Ivy Techcase in 2017.A number of opinions were published on the case.
After the oral argument was made on September 26, 2017, the opinion was issued on February 26, 2018.The full court reversed the prior rulings on a 10–3 vote, and asserted that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation employment discrimination under the category of sex.The court ruled that "because sexual orientation is a function of sex and sex is a protected characteristic under Title VII, it follows that sexual orientation is also protected."The ruling did not focus on the merits of Zarda's case specifically, but whether sexual orientation was protected as a function of sex,and in effect protected gay workers under the Civil Rights Act.In effect, the conclusion held that Zarda's estate could bring Title VII claims against Altitude Express, as the law encompassed discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the ruling, the 2nd Circuit confirmed that its conclusion was the result and continuation of the Supreme Court's 1989 prohibition on gender stereotyping inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins, as wellOncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servicesin 1998 that protected both genders from discrimination.
Prior to theen bancruling from the Second Circuit, it had been expected for the case to be on track for the Supreme Court. Zarda's legal representative Gregory Antollino argued that, "If you discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, you necessarily take into account the sex of the employee. You can't take the 'sex' out of "sexual orientation."
In May 2018, theAdvocatereported that Altitude Express had appealed the February decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.Altitude Express filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case again, arguing, according to theAdvocate,that "expanding the law to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation should be done by legislators, not the judiciary."The petition argued that sexual orientation discrimination did "not amount to discrimination based on gender stereotyping, which some courts have ruled is a type of sex discrimination."In the February ruling, whether sexual orientation discrimination occurred in the case had not been addressed, only the legality of such discrimination. The petition also did not seek to address the merits of the Zarda case specifically, only focusing on whether Title VII applied as a valid type of discrimination.Altitude Express was represented by Saul Zabell of Zabell & Associates.In the petition, Zabell argued that the decision made by the 7th and 2nd Circuits "departed from more than 50 years of established precedent" in that it ruled on the scope of protection for LGBT employees under Title VII. To "resolve the circuit split," the petition called for the Supreme Court to step in.There was no guarantee the court would grant the petition.Donald Zarda's estate, represented by lawyer Gregory Antollino, opposed the Supreme Court review, with Antollino stating that he thought more "circuits need to weigh in" before the Supreme Court involvement and citing other pending cases.It was noted that between the different circuits, the courts were split on the matter of sexual orientation discrimination.
The Supreme Court granted cert to the petition in April 2019 under the case nameAltitude Express, Inc. v Zarda(Docket #17-1623).The case was consolidated with another petition,Bostock v. Clayton County(Docket #17-1618), in which a gay employee in the county's child welfare service program was fired for his sexual orientation. In this case, theEleventh Circuitruled in favor of the county, that previous case law out of theFifth Circuitallowed for dismissal of employees due to sexual orientation. The Court's granting of cert was announced alongside another related case to be heard by the courtR.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, related to whether Title VII protections includedtransgenderindividuals.
Altitude Express,BostockandHarriswere heard during October 8, 2019 oral arguments.In oral arguments the Court's more conservative Justices argued that because Congress had not included sexual orientation at the time of the Civil Rights Act, nor had updated the law to include it since, they feared creating law outside Congress's authority. Arguments also centered on how the word "sex" in Title VII could be interpreted to include sexual orientation, and not strictly gender.
JusticeNeil Gorsuchdelivered the opinion of the Court in this case on June 15, 2020.In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision then involved thestatutory interpretationof Title VII (specifically the original meaning of "sex"),notconstitutional lawas in other recent landmark cases involving the rights of LGBT individuals such asObergefell v. Hodges.The Court further held that Title VII protections against sex discrimination in the employment context apply to discrimination against particular individuals on the basis of sex, as opposed to discrimination against groups.Thus, Title VII provides a remedy to individuals who experience discrimination on the basis of sex even if an employer's policy on the whole does not involve discrimination. Gorsuch wrote:
In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote, "it is irrelevant what an employer might call its discriminatory practice, how others might label it, or what else might motivate it."He referencedPhillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., in which a company refused to hire women with young children; andCity of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, in which an employer required women to make larger pension fund contributions than did men, on the premise that women on average live longer than men do. Both cases violated Title VII, and Gorsuch wrote, "just as labels and additional intentions or motivations didn't make a difference inManhartorPhillips, they cannot make a difference here."
Gorsuch's decision also alluded to concerns that the judgment may set a sweeping precedent that would force gender equality on traditional practices. "They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today."
JusticeSamuel Alitowrote a dissent, joined by JusticeClarence Thomas. In his dissent, Alito asserted that at the time of the crafting of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 the concepts of sexual orientation and transgender identity would have been unknown, and thus Congress's language should not be implied to cover these facets. Alito wrote, "Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court's updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."Alito further stated that "even if discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be squeezed into some arcane understanding of sex discrimination, the context in which Title VII was enacted would tell us that this is not what the statute's terms were understood to mean at that time."Alito was critical of the majority decision:
JusticeBrett Kavanaughwrote a separate dissent, arguing that the Court could not add sexual orientation or gender identity to Title VII due to theseparation of powers, leaving this responsibility to Congress. He concluded by acknowledging that