User:Minivanburen/Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc.
| Minivanburen/Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Full case name | Medina Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. |
| Decided | September 24 2002 |
| Citations | Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) |
| Holding | |
| A gay person can assert a viable claim under Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination where he shows that the discrimination was motivated by gender stereotypes rather than only his sexual orientation. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Schroeder, Hug, Pregerson, Trott, Fernandez, Nelson, Thomas, Graber, Fletcher, Fisher, Berzon |
| Case opinions | |
| Concurrence | Pregerson; Graber; Fisher |
| Dissent | Hug |
| Laws applied | |
| Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. | |
Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002), was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit about gender stereotyping as a form of sex discrimination, as prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court had previously held that Title VII prohibited the use of prescriptive beliefs about gender roles in employment decisions; however, Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. was unique in that the plaintiff was a gay man. At that time, courts had interpreted Title VII not to protect discrimination because of sexual orientation, but only discrimination because of sex. The main issue was therefore whether the discrimination the plaintiff faced was rooted in gender stereotypes, or in his sexual orientation.
Background
[edit]Prior Case Law
[edit]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited a wide swath of discriminatory practices; Title VII of that law made illegal employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Over the years, courts interpreted this prohibition to include sexual harassment and discrimination based on "gender stereotypes." The Supreme Court recognized this latter prohibition in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). There, a woman had been denied a promotion because her employer deemed her to be "too masculine" in her dress and demeanor. The Supreme Court found that this discrimination--"gender stereotyping"--was a form of sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited under Title VII.