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

Will the high court allow discrimination on sexual orientation?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
In another bold move against the LGBT community, President Trump’s administration has asked a federal appeals court to deny discrimination protection for transgender individuals. Federal input on a private lawsuit A private employment discrimination lawsuit between an employee and employer regarding gay rights issues is before a federal appeals court on the East Coast. The Trump administration’s Justice Department has intervened in the case. It asserts that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This position by the federal government is the opposite of what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in 2015 and what the Justice Department under the Obama administration asserted. Various federal appeals courts across the nation disagree on what the law does and does not do. This means that the case may end up before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future. The intervention in the case is another example of President Trump appearing to contradict promises made during his election campaign. On July 26, he tweeted that he will stop transgender individuals from serving in the military. He also reversed guidelines established by Obama that sought to protect transgender students in schools. Protections for employees and students in California Despite the potential changes, Californians are still afforded protections not available in other states. Since 2011, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits employment discrimination based on “gender identity” and “gender expression.” New regulations came into effect on July 1 of this year that are supposed to help employers and employees know what is and is not allowed. If you believe you are a victim of discrimination in the workplace or in school, you owe it to yourself to learn about your legal options. An experienced discrimination lawyer can help you.

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.