Last weekĀ the Department of Justice (on behalf of its client, the EEOC), filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to conclude that āsex stereotyping by itself is not a Title VII violation.ā
What might this look like if the DOJ gets its wish?
Consider the following story (asĀ told on Reddit).
Iām a 21 year old female. I feel like I should say these thing about myself because these are usually what people ask or say when they find out I rarely shave my legs. Iām straight, Iām very feminine, and I just donāt like to waste my time or money on shaving my legs. Also Iām not a hairy person at all! ā¦
[T]oday I had to go into the office to grab some materials and my boss was there in his office so I stopped to say hi before I left out. ā¦
My boss then proceeded to tell me that a few people complained I didnāt shave my legs and they said it went against company policy that I wasnāt being hygienic. I was even more shocked.
I cannot fathom a Title VII under which an employer can enforce a workplace rule prohibiting hairy legs against women but not men. Yet, thatās the world in which we might live if the Supreme Court legalizes āsex stereotyping.ā
But isnāt that the very point of prohibiting sex-based stereotypes at work. The stereotype itselfĀ isĀ the āevidence of favoritism of one sex over the other.ā ItĀ isĀ the proof that the employer ātreated members of one sex less favorably than similarly situated members of the opposite sex.ā
Also read: #MeToo Hasnāt Killed the Office Romance, Just the Inappropriate Ones
An employer that prohibits women, but not men, from wearing neckties is acting on a sex-based stereotype that a necktie is menās attire, and not womenās attire. Similarly, an employer who requires women to shave their legs, while letting men grow itĀ au naturel, acts on a sex-based grooming stereotype forĀ no reason other than gender. The application and enforcement of a sex-based stereotype to the detriment of one sex over another is the āevidence of favoritism of one sex over the other.ā No other proof should be necessary.
I am hopeful that the Supreme Court does right by LGBTQ employees and holds that Title VIIās prohibition against sex discrimination implicitly covers LGBTQ discrimination. If, however, these cases go the other way, I pray that the Court does not take the DOJās bait and rewind womenās rights by five or six decades.