Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Morrison & Foerster of counsel Andrew Turnbull spoke to Human Resource Executive about the U.S. Supreme Court’s eventual decision on whether Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

How Will the Supreme Court Vote on LGBTQ Protections?

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Morrison & Foerster of counsel Andrew Turnbull spoke to <a target="_blank" href="https://hrexecutive.com/how-will-the-supreme-court-vote-on-lgbtq-protections/">Human Resource Executive</a> about the U.S. Supreme Court’s eventual decision on whether Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.The decision will be a close one, Andrew said, explaining that attorneys for the plaintiff employees involved argued that discriminating against a man for being attracted to another man or against a transgender worker for changing genders are both forms of sex stereotyping that fall under the court’s ruling in the 1989 Price Waterhouse case. However, according to Andrew, “employers’ attorneys and Solicitor General Noel Francisco, while recognizing Price Waterhouse as good law, claimed that ruling in favor of the employees would create new protected categories not covered by the definition of ‘sex’ under Title VII.”Andrew added that regardless of the state and federal landscapes for LGBTQ employment protections, an increasing number of employers are instating policies that protect such workers from discrimination “because they recognize it is good business and helps them recruit and retain top talent.”