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

Supreme Court rules Title VII protects LGBTQ+ workers

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

The Supreme Court ruled on June 15, 2020, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ+ employees based on gender identity and sexual orientation. While California law already prohibited discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation and gender expression, the court ruling extends those protections to all states and the District of Columbia.

LGBTQ+ Title VII Employee Rights>Sexual Harassment

The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on three separate cases. One of these cases involved a transgender woman named Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job at a funeral home because she was not going to be representing herself as a man. Previously, the lower court had ruled in favor of Aimee Stephens, stating that firing an employee based on his or her gender identity is in part based on the person’s sex, which is a legally protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The other two cases involved gay men who claimed that they had been fired due to their sexual orientation.

Ultimately, the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch states that sex plays a necessary role when discriminating against an employee for his or her gender identity or sexual orientation. According to the opinion, a person who is fired for being homosexual or transgender would not have been fired had he or she been a different sex.

If an employee believes he or she was fired from a job due to his or her gender identity or sexual orientation, an employment law attorney may assist with determining if that employee has a case against the employer. The attorney may begin an investigation that looks at the employer’s hiring or firing records to determine if there is a pattern of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Further, the attorney may gather evidence, such as texts or emails the employer may have sent to the employee.

Our LGBTQ Discrimination Attorneys at Todd Friedmann can help your case!

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.