Equality Case Files

Florida

"Four Florida families filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine’s new rules banning the medically necessary healthcare their transgender children need." See press release below for more information and a link to the complaint.

The case has been assigned to Judge Robert L. Hinkle.

Families Sue to Stop Florida Ban on Essential Medical Care for Transgender Youth - National Center for Le***an Rights “We have no choice but to fight this ban to protect our daughter’s health.” – Plaintiff Jane Doe, challenging the policy on behalf of herself and her daughter, Susan TALLAHASSEE, FL – Four Florida families filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Boards of Medicine and Osteop...

California

"[State Senator Scott Weiner] and Democratic Assembly Member Evan Low of Silicon Valley plan to introduce legislation Tuesday to rescind Proposition 8. The measure would need to be approved in the Legislature by a two-thirds vote, and then it will ultimately fall to voters to decide via a referendum."

"In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-s*x marriage in California. [Proposition 8] is still on the books, however, and that worries advocates who think the high court may revisit the 2015 case that legalized gay marriage nationwide."

Full article below.

California will try to enshrine right to same-s*x marriage A constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2008 that banned the state from recognizing same-s*x marriages is still on the books, worrying advocates.

Soule v. Connecticut Assn. of Schools (Plaintiffs in lawsuit to block transgender girls from competing as girls in school sports appeal order dismissing the case and request judge reassignment on remand)

The 2nd Circuit has ordered this appeal reheard by the full court (i.e., en banc rehearing). The was on the court's own initiative, not the result of any party asking for the rehearing.

A 3-judge panel issued its opinion last December, upholding the district court's dismissal. Now the full court will rehear the appeal.

The ACLU, representing two transgender athletes, intervened in the case to defend the state's policy. I expect a statement from them shortly and will update this post when I receive it.

On Tuesday, the 5th Circuit heard argument in Braidwood v. EEOC, a case in which religious employers are seeking exemptions to Title VII's protections against discrimination based on s*xual orientation or gender identity.

• Panel: Judges Smith, Clement, and Wilson.
• Listen to audio here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/22/22-10145_2-7-2023.mp3

In district court, this case is before Judge Reed O’Connor. Judge O’Connor ruled for plaintiffs (the employers) as to “policies on s*xual conduct, dress code, and restrooms,” and certified a class consisting of “employers who oppose homos*xual or transgender behavior on religious and nonreligious bases.”

The employers argue, and Judge O’Connor agreed, that Bostock prohibits discrimination based on status, not behavior, and any s*x-neutral policies (their meaning: it applies equally to "biological" men and women) are permissible.
For the district court ruling, see
• Memo Opinon: http://files.eqcf.org/cases/418-cv-00824-124/
• Judgment: http://files.eqcf.org/cases/418-cv-00824-136/

The EEOC is appealing the judgment in this pre-enforcement challenge (including the class certification) on the basis of standing and ripeness, saying the ruling “amounts to a nationwide advisory opinion on the scope of Title VII and its interaction with RFRA and the First Amendment"

Plaintiff Braidwood Mgmt is cross-appealing the ruling in favor of the EEOC “as to employer policies concerning bis*xual conduct, s*x-reassignment surgery, and hormone treatment.” Braidwood argues that Bostock only speaks to “homos*xual and transgender status” and it is only EEOC’s interpretation that has impermissibly extended its holding to s*xual orientation and gender identity.

Briefs in the appeal are available at our docket linked below.

5th Cir. 22-10145 Docket Braidwood Management v. EEOC, No. 22-10145 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit