California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief pushing back on an effort to undermine civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans in the workplace. The case, McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., arose when World Vision, Inc. rescinded a job offer to Aubry McMahon upon discovering that she was in a same-sex marriage. In amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold the lower court’s decision in favor of McMahon, and stresses the states’ strong interest in employment discrimination laws and protections against sex-based discrimination.
“No one should be denied employment simply because of who they are or who they love,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We urge the Ninth Circuit to uphold the lower court’s decision and reaffirm the critical protections that safeguard all workers against discrimination in the workplace. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue to oppose efforts to undermine the rights of every individual to live and work free from discrimination.”
After World Vision rescinded her job offer to be a customer service representative because she was in a same-sex marriage, McMahon sued under Title VII and Washington State law based on sex, sexual-orientation, and marital status discrimination. While World Vision argues that it is exempt from Title VII and state law protections under the First Amendment right to expressive association and the ministerial exception, a district court disagreed, ruling in favor of McMahon and denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the employment discrimination claim, while granting McMahon’s motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, World Vision appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
California shares interests in upholding the rights protected by the First Amendment, and respects and does not seek to abridge the right to hold and express views regarding the nature of marriage, including views founded in religious faith. But Defendant’s expansive theory of the First Amendment right of expressive association, and its extremely broad views of church autonomy and the ministerial exception, go well beyond existing precedent and threaten states’ ability to combat employment discrimination around the country.
In their amicus brief, the coalition asserts:
- The government has a compelling interest in eliminating sex discrimination in employment, and Title VII and similar statutes are narrowly tailored to that goal.
- The First Amendment right of expressive association does not apply to the employer-employee relationship at issue.
- The defendants’ theory of expressive association would badly undermine employment discrimination laws.
- The Ninth Circuit should affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Original source can be found here.