The Supreme Court accepted certiorari in three cases (Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC) and will determine whether federal employment discrimination laws that ban “sex” discrimination cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and\/or gender identity. The rulings in these cases are very likely to apply to the Fair Housing Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.,<\/a>883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. granted sub. nom <\/em>Altitude Express, Inc., v. Zarda, 2019 WL 1756678 (U.S. 2019), held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination both because it is either the sex of the employee or that their potential or actual partners that defines sexual orientation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bostock v. Clayton County Bd. of Commissioners,<\/a>723 Fed. Appx. 964 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, <\/em>2019 WL 1756677 (U.S. 2019) came to the opposite conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.<\/a>, 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018),\u00a0cert. granted sub. nom,\u00a0<\/em>R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, 2019 WL 1756679 (U.S. 2019) held that on the basis of gender identity constitutes sex discrimination. In that case, an employer fired an employee who was transitioning from male to female. The court held that the employee had proven discrimination based on gender stereotyping and because “sex” discrimination necessarily includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.\u00a0See also\u00a0<\/em>Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Co.,\u00a0<\/a>915 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2019) (trans employees not protected by federal employment discrimination laws.<\/p>\n\n\n The Supreme Court accepted certiorari in three cases (Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC) and will determine whether federal employment discrimination laws that ban “sex” discrimination cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and\/or gender identity. The rulings in these cases are very likely to apply to the Fair Housing Act. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.,883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. granted sub. nom Altitude Express, Inc., v. Zarda, 2019 WL 1756678 (U.S. 2019), held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination both because it is either the sex of the employee or that their potential or actual partners that defines sexual orientation. Bostock v. Clayton County Bd. of Commissioners,723 Fed. Appx. 964 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 WL 1756677 (U.S. 2019) came to the opposite conclusion. EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral …<\/p>\n