A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Sexual orientation discrimination: still a problem in California

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

In America, LGBT people are enjoying more freedom and acceptance than they perhaps ever have before. Besides same-sex marriage becoming legal in more and more states, gay, lesbian and transgender people are increasingly able to be open and free about who they are and be treated with the same respect as everybody else.

However, prejudice still exists, including in employment matters. Despite all the advances society has made in just the past few years, many LGBT people still experience discrimination when they apply for work, or get unfairly denied promotions, raises and other opportunities on the job.

Victims of sexual orientation discrimination at work have legal tools at their disposal they can use to fight back against this unjust practice. At the federal level, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that discrimination against an individual for being transgender is a form of discrimination based on sex. Therefore, it is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC has held that the Act covers some discrimination claims by gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals as well.

California law is arguably even more comprehensive. The Fair Employment and Housing Act states that it is a civil right to seek, obtain and hold a job without discrimination based on your gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. Employers are expressly forbidden from refusing to hire someone, hold back an employee’s career advancement, or otherwise discriminate against an individual for these reasons.

But it will be very difficult to fight back on your own. Few victims of gender or sexual orientation discrimination can succeed without the help of an experienced employment discrimination attorney.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.