Legal Legacy
The legal legacy of Hopkins is enduring, ubiquitous, and ever-expanding. In the thirty years since Ann Hopkins defined Title VII’s prohibition on workplace sex discrimination, over 5,500 reported court opinions now cite Hopkins, in courts across the country and at all levels of the judiciary.
Most recently, the Supreme Court expanded Hopkins’ transformative application to protect LGBTQ employees at work. The Court considered three consolidated cases: EEOC v. R.G., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. Mich., 2018), Bostock v. Clayton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 723 Fed. Appx. 964 (11th Cir. Ga., 2018), and Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2018). In each, the “employer fired a long-time employee shortly after the employee revealed that he or she is homosexual or transgender—and allegedly for no reason other than the employee’s homosexuality or transgender status.” Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider, “Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on … sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.” R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, 139 S. Ct. 1599 (April 22, 2019). In this application, Hopkins continues to eliminate discriminatory barriers in the workplace for a new generation.
In Bostock v. Clayton Cty. (2020), the Supreme Court considered whether the termination of three employees violates “Title VII alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.”
Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman, wrote her employer to explain that after six years of service and conformity with the dress code for male employees, she planned to “live and work full-time as a woman,” following a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Id. The Michigan funeral home fired her before she could leave on vacation. Id.
In Georgia, Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County and lead their award-winning child welfare advocacy. Id. After a decade of service, Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Influential community members disparaged his public participation, and son after he was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee. Id.
Donald Zarda worked several seasons as a skydiving instructor at Altitude Express, but after mentioned that he was gay, days later, the New York company fired him. Id.
Caption: On the day of the Bostock cases oral hearing, rallies were held outside of the Supreme Court building.
Photos from Ted Eytan
Considering these claims together, the Court held “Title VII’s message is ‘simple but momentous’: An individual employee’s sex is ‘not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees” and by extension, “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Id. Justice Gorsuch illustrates, “for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men …. materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits … it tolerates in his female colleague.” Id. The Court analogizes, “the plaintiff ’s evidence in Price Waterhouse was of this nature …. a woman who was passed over for partnership at an accounting firm, and some of the adverse comments about her work appeared to criticize her for being forceful and insufficiently ‘feminin[e].’” Id. Ruling in favor of Zarda, Stephens, and Bostock, Hopkins is the torch that lit the Supreme Court’s way to federal LGBTQ employment protection.
From employment and pay equity to criminal law and fair housing, Hopkins’ profound legal impact continues…
Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2017)
The Supreme Court invalidated a federal drug distribution statute, in reliance on and consistent with, Hopkins’ definition of legal causation.
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013)
The Supreme Court examined a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The Court limited the scope of Hopkins’ causation standard, holding it did not apply to retaliation claims under the ADEA.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007)
The Supreme Court’s denied Plaintiff Ledbetter’s claim for wage discrimination on the basis of sex when it decided that the statute of limitations to pursue a wage discrimination claim began when the employee’s salary was set and not with each new paycheck. However, the impassioned dissent relied heavily on the statutory intent of Title VII explored in Hopkins. Answering the dissent’s call, Congress abrogated the case with The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 expanding the statute of limitations and worker protections against pay discrimination.
On January 29, 2009, President Barack Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. To the right of President Obama is the law’s namesake, Lilly Ledbetter.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)
The Supreme Court held that criminal statutes carrying increased penalties for racialized hate crimes were constitutionally valid. The unanimous opinion cited to Hopkins for the proposition that examination of a defendant's discriminatory speech as evidence of a Title VII discrimination claim was constitutional.
United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991)
The Supreme Court held that policies prohibiting women from knowingly working in potentially hazardous occupations are discriminatory and in violation of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The concurrence relies on Hopkins for the proposition that it is the employer’s burden to prove an occupational qualification is not unlawfully discriminatory.
Univ. of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990)
The Supreme Court considered whether the University’s refusal to disclose unfavorable tenure review comments in the course of a Title VII discrimination case was protected by the First Amendment. The Court held in favor of the EEOC and a Chinese-American female professor who was denied tenure on the basis of discriminatory tenure review comments and rejected the University’s claim based on Hopkins’ precedent.
Heagney v. Wong, 915 F.3d 805 (1st Cir., 2019)
The First Circuit held that a Massachusetts official improperly discriminated against an appointed officer by rescinding his appointment because he was charged but acquitted of a crime. The court considered this an unlawful motivation for denying employment, citing Hopkins for the standard that "[a]n employer may not . . . prevail in a mixed-motives case by offering a legitimate and sufficient reason for its decision if that reason did not motivate it at the time of the decision."
Franchina v. City of Providence, 881 F.3d 32 (1st Cir., 2018)
The First Circuit relied on the causation standard of Hopkins to affirm the Title VII hostile work environment claim of a female Rhode Island fire department employee who experienced repeated sexual harassment and was berated, spit at, and assaulted by an off-duty co-worker while a supervising officer stood by.
Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219 (4th Cir., 2019)
The Fourth Circuit held in favor of Plaintiff Haynes, who filed an employment discrimination claim in South Carolina after his employer terminated him for absence, but applied a comparatively permissive attendance policy to white employees. Relying on Hopkins, the Court reasoned that a jury could consider if race was an unlawful motivating factor in the termination.
Mhany Mgmt. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir., 2016)
The Second Circuit held in favor of a construction management company that challenged racially discriminatory local zoning ordinances, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The Court applied Hopkins to require village and county defendants to offer evidence of a non-discriminatory motive to avoid violating the FHA.