The Case for Deferring to the EEOC's Interpretations in Macy and Foxx to Classify LGBT Discrimination as Sex Discrimination Under Title VII

• Author: Tessa M. Register
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2017. B.A., University of California, Riverside, 2013
• Pages: 1397-1425

1397

The Case for Deferring to the EEOC’s

Interpretations in Macy and Foxx to

Classify LGBT Discrimination as Sex

Discrimination Under Title VII

Tessa M. Register*

ABSTRACT: In 2012 and 2015, the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission determined that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 prohibits federal employers from discriminating against employees on

the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, respectively. The agency’s

determinations reflect not only the policy preferences of the Obama

Administration, but also of a growing percentage of Americans who believe

LGBT citizens should enjoy the same federal statutory protections as other

protected classes. Although a select number of states have enacted statutes

prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of gender identity and

sexual orientation, many private employers face no legal consequences for

discriminating against LGBT employees. This Note argues that rather than

wait for legislative action, courts should defer to the EEOC’s interpretations

in Macy and Foxx in order to swiftly incorporate gender identity and sexual

orientation within Title VII, thereby prohibiting private employers from

discriminating on these bases.

I. I

NTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1398

II. THE EEOC AND JUDICIAL REVIEW .............................................. 1400

A. THE ORIGIN AND POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ....... 1400

B. THE EEOC AND TITLE VII ..................................................... 1402

C. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND JUDICIAL REVIEW .................. 1403

III. GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION

IN THE WORKPLACE .................................................................... 1408

*

J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2017. B.A., University of

California, Riverside, 2013. I would like to extend special thanks to Professor Kathryn Kovacs for

introducing me to this topic and Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig for her guidance and

continual support. I am also grateful for Evelyn Anderson, Matthew Cubin, and the editors of

Volumes 101 and 102 of the Iowa Law Review for their hard work on this Note.

1398 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 102:1397

A. THE CURRENT CLIMATE OF LGBT WORKPLACE

DISCRIMINATION ................................................................... 1408

B. STATE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION STATUTES ................................ 1410

C. THE OBERGEFELL EXIGENCY ................................................ 1411

IV. THE DECISIONS ........................................................................... 1411

A. MACY V. HOLDER (2012)..................................................... 1412

B. BALDWIN V. FOXX (2015) ................................................... 1415

V. THE CASE FOR DEFERENCE ......................................................... 1418

A. THE EEOC’S HISTORY OF LESSER DEFERENCE ......................... 1419

B. AWARDING CHEVRON DEFERENCE TO MACY AND FOXX ......... 1420

1. Chevron Step Zero: The Force of Law .......................... 1420

2. Chevron Step One: Statutory Ambiguity ....................... 1420

3. Chevron Step Two: A Permissible Construction ........... 1422

C. AWARDING SKIDMORE DEFERENCE TO MACY AND FOXX ........ 1423

VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 1425

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court announced that the Fourteenth

Amendment requires states to recognize and grant marriage licenses to same-

sex couples.1 The decision was heralded as an enormous step forward for the

LGBT2 community—even the White House joined in the celebration by

projecting rainbow-colored lights onto its exterior.3 However, the victory was

bittersweet. Same-sex couples can now wed on Saturday and then, in a

majority of states, be fired from their jobs on Monday solely because of their

sexual orientation.4 An even greater number of states fail to protect against

workplace discrimination on the basis of gender identity.5 A 2014 study

1. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2604 (2015) (“[T]he right to marry is a

fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal

Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived

of that right and that liberty.”).

2. LGBT is an acronym that stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. The

complete acronym is “LGBTQIA,” which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer,

Intersex, and Asexual. Kayley Weinberg, NOW Updates Acronym: LGBTQIA, NOW (Aug. 11, 2014),

http://www.now.org/blog/now-updates-acronym-lgbtqia. Because this Note focuses on the

workplace rights of only lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees, this author uses the

LGBT acronym.

3. Allie Malloy & Karl de Vries, White House Shines Rainbow Colors to Hail Same-Sex Marriage

Ruling, CNN POL. (June 30, 2015, 1:33 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/white-

house-rainbow-marriage.

4. See infra Part III.B.

5. See infra Part III.B.