The Trump administration is known for its hostility toward marijuana. It’s also known for its hostility toward the LGBT community. In a huge blow to the Trump administration, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Monday that employers cannot discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation.
Many states, including Oregon, Washington, and California have statutes explicitly prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation. The Federal Civil Rights Act (“the Act”) does not explicitly protect employees based on sexual orientation. Instead, it only protects employees based on sex. Circuit courts across the country are taking up the issue of whether employees should be protected based on sexual orientation, and reaching different conclusions.
In 2010, Donald Zarda sued his employer, Altitude Express, Inc. alleging they had terminated him because he was gay. The federal district court ruled in favor of the employer, holding the Act did not protect employees based on sexual orientation. The case pitted the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the federal department of justice. The EEOC submitted a brief in support of Mr. Zarda, arguing the Act protects employees based on sexual orientation. The Federal Department of Justice (headed by our good friend, Mr. Sessions) submitted a brief supporting the employer, and arguing the Act did not extend to sexual orientation.
The Second Circuit overruled the lower court. Siding with Mr. Zarda in a lengthy, 69-page opinion, with multiple concurrences and 80 pages of dissents, it ultimately held that “sexual orientation is doubly delineated by sex because it is a function of both a person’s sex and the sex of those to whom he or she is attracted. Logically because sexual orientation is a function of sex and sex is a protected characteristic under [the Act] it follows that sexual orientation is also protected.” Makes sense to us.
Two other federal appeals courts recently have heard similar cases. The Seventh circuit determined discrimination based on sexual orientation was discrimination based on sex under the Act, while the Eleventh Circuit held the Act’s reference to sex did not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court declined to hear the Seventh Circuit’s case, but now, with multiple circuits offering opinions on the issue, the Supreme Court may be persuaded to hear the Second Circuit’s case. If they do, let’s hope they get it right.
So why does this matter to cannabis businesses? Cannabis businesses are subject to both state and federal employment laws. If a cannabis business discriminates against an employee because of sexual orientation, the business could be in violation of both state and federal law.
As we all know, Attorney General Sessions ripped up the Cole memorandum earlier this year. Without the memorandum, there is little guidance about when and where federal district attorneys will choose to enforce the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) against cannabis companies. Thus, compliance with state and federal regulations is more important than ever during this time. It is best to stay under the radar rather than draw federal attention to your business by arguably violating federal laws—other than the CSA that is.
If you ever have questions about terminating an employee it is always best to consult an employment law expert first to ensure all basis are covered and no violations arise from the termination. If your company is not terminating an employee on the basis of sexual orientation, but you believe that the employee could make such a claim, it is crucial to consider and attempt to mitigate possible claims. Both state and federal laws tend to be very detailed when it comes to protection of employees. In unsettled areas of law, such as the employees and sexual orientation, prudence is advised.
Megan Vaniman is an attorney at Harris Bricken, a law firm with lawyers in Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Barcelona, and Beijing. This story was originally published on the Canna Law Blog.
