The restaurant chain sought to boost diversity in its workforce and its contracts after the Black Lives Matter movement, but a conservative shareholder argues that these policies violated federal and state discrimination laws.
On February 6, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—does not protect employees from discrimination on the basis of transgender identity. In doing so, the court also affirmed its own 1979 decision that Title VII does not protect employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That interpretation of Title VII is at odds with the present interpretation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the agency charged with enforcing Title VII—as well as that of several other federal circuit courts.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination "because of ... sex" includes protection against sexual orientation discrimination. Read the whole opinion on Justia Law.