EEOC Rules That Title VII Protects Sexual Orientation

 On July 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") significantly advanced the rights and protections of LGBT working persons in the United States by ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The decision came in response to a complaint filed by a Florida-based air traffic control specialist against the Transportation Security Administration. In its decision, the EEOC explained that “allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex." However, as the Washington Post explained, the EEOC's decision conflicts with rulings of most federal courts, which have found that Title VII does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC found those rulings to be "dated." The EEOC's decision will apply to all federal employees’ claims filed at the EEOC, although federal courts often given deference to EEOC decisions although such decisions are not binding.

The Massachusetts employment non-discrimination statute, Chapter 151B, already protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Still, the EEOC's decision will have far-reaching implications throughout other parts of the country and in state and federal courts in Massachusetts when addressing claims under Title VII.

MCAD finds Boston College discriminated against Chemistry professor

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD") ordered Boston College to pay $125,000 in emotional distress damages and at least 12 years of backpay after finding that the College retaliated against a tenured associate professor after the professor complained about hostile treatment by fellow faculty members related to his mental illness. Hearing Officer Betty Waxman found that after Professor William Armstrong returned from a  leave of absence for due to mental health issues,  the College and Chemistry Department members took adverse actions by "systematically isolating him from the Chemistry Department." Armstrong and the College had an agreement designed to integrate him back into the College and Department after his leave, and Waxman found that his efforts to implement this agreement constituted protected activity since the agreement itself was an accommodation to his disability. When Armstrong complained to the Faculty Grievance Committee, which Waxman found to be protected activity, the reactions of administrative and faculty members turned further hostile. As Waxman explained, “[T]he Chemistry Department, in effect, punished Complainant for seeking to enforce the terms of the reintegration agreements which constituted an accommodation to his disability. Such action, in my opinion, constitutes retaliation."

 Cecilie Gromada, an incoming First-Year student at Boston University Law School and part-time paralegal, contributed to this report.

Class action alleges Boston Scientific discriminated agains female sales executives

A class action lawsuit filed against Boston Scientific alleges that the company systematically discriminated against female executive by assigning them to less profitable geographic areas and denying equal compensation. The lawsuit seeks $50 million in damages.

According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, the company "maintains an unfair system of gender-stratified compensation" through its geographic assignments. The attorneys claim that "in effect, [Boston Scientific] bars female employees from better and higher-paying positions that have traditionally been held by male employees."

In a statement, Boston Scientific said: "We believe this case lacks merit and is led by a law firm known for filing many similar complaints against companies." The plaintiffs are represented by Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, which has filed similar class action lawsuits against other large companies.

Federal court rules that CBA does not block employee from pursuing discrimination claim

A broadly-worded arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement did not preclude an employee from bringing an employment discrimination claim against her employer, a federal judge has ruled. The employee did not exhaust her grievance procedures, as the CBA expressly required, before filing her claim of retaliation and failure to promote. The employer argued that the CBA required the employee to proceed through the grievance and arbitration process before pursuing her claim in court or, in the alternative, that her claim was preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), which seeks to establish uniform interpretation of collective bargaining agreements. According to the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, newly-appointed United States District Court Judge Mark Mastrioanni ruled against the employer on both arguments. Judge Mastrioanni found that the CBA did not contain a “clear and unmistakable” waiver of the plaintiff’s rights under Chapter 151B, the state's employment non-discrimination statute. On the preemption argument, Judge Mastrioanni found that the employee's claim only required consultation with the CBA, not interpretation of the CBA. Therefore, the LMRA did not preempt the employee's claim.

Associatonal discrimination claim allowed to proceed

Federal Judge Nathaniel Gorton allowed a claim of associational discrimination to proceed based on an allegation that the plaintiff's employer discrimination against the plaintiff due to his wife's disability. Judge Gorton ruled that such a claim is permitted under the Massachusetts employment non-discrimination statute and the American with Disabilities Act. However, Judge Gorton also ruled that a claim by the Plaintiff that he was denied an accommodation based on his wife's disability would not be viable.