.

Chair, Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group

Portrait of Danielle M. Vugrinovich

Defense Digest

“Because of an Individual’s Sex”—The Supreme Court of the United States Holds that Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Qualify for Protection Under Title VII

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 2021

January 29, 2021

by Danielle M. Vugrinovich

Key Points:

  • Treat complaints of discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity as you would with any other claim for sex discrimination based upon Title VII.
  • Employers should update and distribute all discrimination policies to include sexual orientation and gender identity as classes against whom discrimination will not be tolerated.
  • Apply policies and procedures consistently and fairly.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to prohibit discrimination in the workplace because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In June of 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States announced a decision on an issue that has garnered much attention throughout the entire legal community and the country. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, et. al., the High Court found that sexual orientation and gender identity qualify for Title VII’s protection because any such discrimination is “because of” the individual’s sex. In the Court’s opinion, the terms “sex,” “because of,” “discriminate” and “individual,” used in the statute, were examined in depth. The Court noted that when considering statutes that had unambiguous and clear terms, there was no reason to look any further than what the statute actually stated. Neither Congress’s intent nor the employer’s motivation or label for the discriminatory practice was relevant.

In Bostock, the Court consolidated three cases for decision on the same issue—two in which the employee was terminated due to his or her sexual orientation and one for the employee’s gender identity. The issue presented in these cases was “whether an employer can fire someone for being homosexual or transgender.” The Court held that the answer was clear. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, explained that it was impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against them because of his or her sex. Consider a situation in which an employer had two employees who were “materially identical” in all respects, both of whom were attracted to men, but one is a woman and one is a man. If the employer fires the male employee for no other reason than he is attracted to men, the employer discriminated against him because of his sex. Similarly, consider a circumstance in which an employer has a female employee and an employee who at birth was identified as a male, but now identifies as a female. If the employer fires the transgender employee, but retains the employee who identified as female at birth for no other reason than their gender traits at birth, the employer discriminated against the transgender employee because of her sex. The employee’s sex does not have to be the primary reason for the adverse employment action in order for the employer to be liable under Title VII. The Court held that, even if there were other factors involved in the decision to terminate, if one factor was the employee’s sex, the employer would be liable under Title VII.

What does this opinion mean for employers? An employer must treat a complaint for discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity exactly the same as it would treat a complaint of sex discrimination, or any other class that is protected by Title VII. Even if the employer does not have the requisite number of employees to fall under Title VII, it is a best practice to employ the same procedures and policies as if it did fall under Title VII. Some state laws may already specify that discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity is unlawful. If states do not already have such laws, it is very likely that they will follow the Supreme Court’s lead in their own interpretation of liability for discrimination complaints based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. Discriminatory actions include failure to hire, failure to promote, pervasive inappropriate comments or actions, denying such individual conditions and/or privileges of employment, and termination. Employers must perform an investigation when they receive complaints regarding harassment or discrimination that in any way could relate to the sex of the individual complaining of such behavior. As always, policies and procedures must be applied consistently and fairly among all employees.

Additionally, employers should update their employee manuals and any other documentation that explains anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies to reflect that the employer will not tolerate harassment or discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. The policies should also explain how to report complaints of discrimination or harassment of any type, including those based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. If the employer requires employees to sign an acknowledgement of anti-discrimination policies, those acknowledgments should be updated to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

As with all employment-relations activities, it is of the upmost importance to apply policies consistently and fairly, promulgate written anti-discrimination and harassment policies, and ensure that all employees understand the policies.

*Danielle is a shareholder in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office and can be reached at (412) 803-1185 or dmvugrinovich@mdwcg.com.

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 Atty. William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Attys. Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.