by Vijay Mani
October 3rd, 2014


On October 1, 2014 the Fairness for All Marylanders Act (“FAMA”) went into effect.  FAMA, which was originally discussed in the JGL Law Blog post (Will Prince George’s County residents face less fairness if The Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014 (SB 212) becomes law? Possibly.) prohibits discrimination of Maryland employees on the basis of gender identity or transgender status. In passing FAMA, Maryland joined sixteen other states as the only states to cover sexual orientation and gender identity in employment anti-discrimination laws. While many state and local laws expressly protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals from workplace harassment and discrimination, the majority of states do not, leaving many of those employees who wish to pursue claims of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination to rely on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). 

Title VII prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin; it does not explicitly protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq. That said, many courts have found that LGBT individuals may bring a viable discrimination claim under Title VII on the basis of sex, using a sex stereotyping theory, which can be distinguished from sexual orientation.

Sex stereotyping, using a gender discrimination angle, under Title VII was best explained in the landmark Supreme Court case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), which involved an employer denying a female accountant partnership opportunities because she did not conform to typical gender roles. Specifically, the female employee’s supervisors stated that she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 235.  The Court found that the employment decision was based on the employee’s sex because sex stereotyping[1] partly motivated that decision. See id. at 250.    

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII, has used the sex stereotyping theory to include gender identity, under the purview of Title VII. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995 (April 20, 2012). In Macy, the EEOC recognized that gender identity was protected under Title VII because it involved “gender stereotyping –failing to act and appear according to expectations defined by gender.” EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 at *6 (quoting Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011)).      

Similarly, the Fifth Circuit, in E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013), found that a male employee, who had been subjected to homophobic slurs and salacious conduct, “could rely on gender-stereotyping evidence to show that same-sex discrimination occurred ‘because of sex’ in accordance with Title VII.” Id. at 468. The Sixth Circuit, however, held differently on the sex stereotyping theory as a means to use Title VII with regard to sexual orientation.  In fact, the Sixth Circuit noted that if the sex stereotyping theory were used in that manner, “any discrimination based on sexual orientation would be actionable under a sex stereotyping theory” because “all homosexuals, by definition, fail to conform to traditional gender norms in their sexual practices.”  Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757, 764 (6th Cir. 2006).

The Sixth Circuit underscores the reality that even under the sex stereotyping theory, certain LGBT individuals who work in states that do not expressly protect them from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are not able to pursue a claim.  Although some members of Congress have repeatedly introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) in order to more broadly prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, to date, no federal statute expressly provides protection.  As such, the ambiguity with respect to sexual orientation under Title VII persists.           

For more information on employment discrimination, contact one of JGL’s discrimination lawyers.



[1] See this posting on how sex stereotyping might be negatively affecting your personal relationships.


Vijay Mani is an attorney in the firm’s Qui Tam litigation and Labor/Employment Law practice groups.  He is highly active in the firm’s False Claims Act practice, advocating on behalf of whistleblowers throughout the country in claims against government contractors that have committed fraud. He is passionate about helping whistleblower clients who have gone out on a limb to uncover massive fraud schemes perpetrated by their employers that would likely remain hidden forever if left unexposed.

Contact Vijay Mani

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.