Articles Posted in Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Last week, voters in Anchorage, Alaska voted against a law that would have prohibited employment discrimination against employees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Notably, both of Alaska’s U.S. Senators supported the law against discrimination. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said of the law, “I think this is overdue and we make sure that within this community that there’s no discrimination and there’s [no] tolerance for any discrimination at all.”

Maine and other states have had laws that prohibit this type of discrimination on the books for years but there are still some parts of the country that do not. Indeed, a majority of states do not have laws that prohibit employment discrimination against GLBT employees. This is one reason why opponents of employment discrimination have supported a bill in Congress, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would illegalize discrimination against GLBT employees.

Today, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a $547,000 judgment against Express Jet Airlines for its sexual orientation discrimination against a former gay employee, Edward Russell. $500,000 of this judgment was for the emotional distress that Mr. Russell suffered due to Express Jet’s discrimination and the rest was for back pay.

One argument that Express Jet made to the Supreme Judicial Court was that the Cumberland County Superior Court applied the wrong damage cap under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). The MHRA caps damages awards against employers based on the number of employees they have. Larger employers are subject to higher damage caps than smaller employers. So, a court can require an employer with over 500 employees to pay more in damages to an employee it discriminates against than it can require an employer with 100 employees to pay.

While Express Jet has more than 500 employees nationwide, it has less than 100 in Maine. Express Jet argued that the Superior Court should only have counted the number of employees it has in Maine, instead of in the whole company, when it decided which damage cap applied to it. Under Express Jet’s argument, the jury’s $1,000,000 award of emotional distress and punitive damages would’ve been reduced to $50,000 instead of $500,000. Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court rejected this argument reasoning that “the clear intent of the graduated caps is to protect smaller employers from large damage judgments that could potentially devastate them.” If the Supreme Judicial Court had accepted Express Jet’s argument, large nationwide employers could garner more protection from the MHRA damage caps than smaller Maine-based employers. This obviously would not make any sense and the court recognized that.

A group of lawmakers in Ohio have introduced a bill, HB 335, that would ban discrimination against LGBT employees. The lawmakers who introduced the bill include a Republican. The Republican party currently controls both houses of the Ohio state legislature. The last time a similar bill was voted on in the Ohio legislature, it died in the Republican controlled state senate.

“Ohio can no longer afford to drive away the talented work force of tomorrow by not enacting this legislation,” said Rep. Ross McGregor, a Republican from Springfield, Ohio. “… By enacting HB 335, we are saying that Ohio is a place where everyone can live and work free of discrimination.”

According to the Human Rights Campaign, Maine, 19 other states, and the District of Columbia outlaw discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Maine, 14 other states, and the District of Columbia outlaw discrimination against employees based on their gender identity.

Maine Senator Susan Collins has co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Maine law already prohibits employment discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. However, according to the Human Rights Campaign, 29 states permit employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and 38 states permit discrimination based on gender identity. In these other states, hardworking men and women can legally be denied job opportunities, be fired, or otherwise discriminated against because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT).

ENDA “affirms the principle that individuals should be judged solely on their skills and abilities,” said Senator Collins. “Similar to the current law in several states, including Maine, and the policies of many Fortune 500 companies, [ENDA] would close an important gap in federal civil rights laws by making it illegal to discriminate in employment based on sexual orientation.”

On February 17, 2011, Massachusetts’ governor signed an executive order which bans discrimination against state employees and employees of state contractors because of their gender identity. This new law would protect some of Massachusetts’ transgender employees from discrimination. However, it does not protect all transgender employees–it only protects those working for the state or a state contractor. The law also does not allow any employees to bring a lawsuit against their employer if the employer discriminates against them because of their gender identity.

The Maine Human Rights Act, which protects all employees in Maine, prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” which includes a person’s “gender identity.” Thus, Maine offers broader protection than Massachusetts for transgender employees. If you work in Maine and your employer discriminates against you because you are a transgender individual, your employer has violated the Maine Human Rights Act. If that happens to you, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss your legal rights.

On June 25, 2010, a jury in Cumberland County Superior Court, in Portland, Maine, found that Express Jet discriminated against a former employee, Edward Russell, because of his sexual orientation. The jury awarded a total of $1,047,000 in damages to Mr. Russell. Express Jet discriminated against Mr. Russell when it prevented him from applying for management positions that he wanted. Attorney Guy Loranger represented Mr. Russell and attorney Alison Bell represented Express Jet at the trial. “This guy was completely qualified to do the job,” Loranger said. “The jury said it didn’t matter his color, his race, his national origin or his sexual preference — he was qualified to do the job and you should have allowed him to do it.”