#Preferential treatment in the workplace pro

In Bostock, the Court outlined an all-purpose test for analyzing whether an adverse employment action violated Title VII: Clayton County (discussed previously here). Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding sexual orientation discrimination in Bostock v. In Maner, the Ninth Circuit joined its fellow Circuits, rejecting the “paramour preference” theory, relying on reasoning from the U.S. These circuits specifically disagreed with the argument that “sex” as used in the statute means “sexual liaisons” and “sexual attractions.” However, every circuit to consider the “paramour preference” reading of Title VII prior to Maner has rejected it, including the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. sex” includes adverse employment actions motivated by romantic and sexual relationship because an employer who shows favoritism toward a supervisor’s lover over other employees has discriminated against other employees “because of” romantic relationships or sexual activity. Under the theory, discrimination “because of. The “paramour preference” theory of Title VII liability requires a broad enough reading of the term “sex” to encompass sexual activity.

#Preferential treatment in the workplace pro

because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” It is well-established that courts interpret this language as giving rise to at least three types of sex discrimination claims: disparate treatment (adverse employment actions motivated by sex) quid pro quo sexual harassment (conditioning employment benefits on submission to sexual advances) and hostile work environment harassment (unwelcome sexual advances so severe as to alter the terms and conditions of employment). Title VII makes it unlawful for a covered employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual.

On August 20, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, rejecting Maner’s arguments and holding that discrimination motivated by an employer’s preferential treatment toward a supervisor’s sexual or romantic partner (otherwise referred to as “paramour preference”) is not unlawful sex discrimination against the complaining employee within the ordinary meaning of Title VII’s terms. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment for the employer. In addition, Maner brought a Title VII retaliation claim alleging that Dignity Health terminated him for speaking out against the lab chief’s favoritism toward his romantic partner at the expense of other employees.ĭignity Health moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Maner failed to state a cognizable claim of sex discrimination, failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination or retaliation, and failed to rebut the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination with evidence of pretext.

Specifically, Maner brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim in Arizona federal court alleging that Dignity Health protected the employee engaged in a romantic relationship with her supervisor (a female employee) from the effects of reduced lab funding by terminating Maner (a male employee) instead. In Maner, the plaintiff, William “Bo” Maner, a biomedical design engineer at Dignity Health, alleged that he was unlawfully discriminated against when his position was eliminated due to lack of funding, while a female employee, who was engaged in a romantic relationship with the lab chief, remained employed.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which hears appeals from federal district courts located in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands). Dignity Health, a recent decision from the U.S. But is it unlawful for a supervisor to give their romantic partner some extra love at the expense of other employees when it comes to workplace decisions? That was the question precisely at issue in Maner v. According to a 2020 study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (“SHRM”) and the University of Chicago’s AmeriSpeak Panel surveying 696 American workers, 27% admitted to having romantic relationships with their work colleagues, and about 27% of those workers indicated that they dated someone who was their boss or another superior. Workplace romances are a tale as old as time. By Melissa Legault on AugPosted in Discrimination, Employment Law, New Cases, News, Recent Cases, Sex Discrimination, Title VII