Discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers is unlawful under federal, New York, and New Jersey law. The federal position was clarified in 2020 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. New York and New Jersey have prohibited it longer and, in most respects, more broadly.
Bostock — Title VII protects sexual orientation and gender identity
In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily discrimination “because of sex” within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 6-3 majority, reasoned that firing a male worker for being attracted to men — when a female worker attracted to men would not be fired — necessarily depends on the worker’s sex. The same reasoning applies to firing a worker for a gender identity that does not match the sex assigned at birth.
Bostock consolidated three cases: two involving gay men (Gerald Bostock and Donald Zarda) and one involving a transgender woman (Aimee Stephens of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes). The Court’s holding covered both sexual orientation and gender identity claims. The Second Circuit had already reached the same result on sexual orientation in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (en banc), before the case reached the Supreme Court.
The Court also reaffirmed the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), gender-stereotype framework. Discrimination against a worker for failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes — appearance, mannerisms, self-presentation — is discrimination because of sex.
Since Bostock, the EEOC has issued updated guidance implementing the decision, and the federal courts have applied it to hiring, firing, promotion, harassment, discipline, and benefits.
The New York State Human Rights Law
The New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, has expressly prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation since the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) took effect in 2003. It has expressly prohibited discrimination based on gender identity or expression since the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) took effect in 2019. The statute applies to employers with four or more employees, with domestic-worker coverage added by 2019 amendments and a small-employer expansion completed in 2020.
The NYSHRL’s harassment framework, after the 2019 amendments codified at N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(h), does not require conduct that is “severe or pervasive.” Harassment because of sexual orientation or gender identity is actionable if it subjects the worker to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
The New York City Human Rights Law
The New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender (which the statute defines to include gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned at birth) and on the basis of sexual orientation. The NYCHRL has protected LGBTQ+ workers since 1986 (sexual orientation) and 2002 (gender identity, under the Transgender Rights Bill, Local Law 3 of 2002). The statute is expressly construed liberally under the 2005 Restoration Act.
The New York City Commission on Human Rights has published detailed enforcement guidance on gender identity discrimination, including the use of names and pronouns, dress codes, bathroom access, and health-insurance coverage. Willful violation of the guidance can support significant civil penalties in addition to compensatory damages.
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., prohibits discrimination in employment based on “affectional or sexual orientation” (added 1991) and on “gender identity or expression” (added 2007). The statute’s remedial reach is broad, encompassing compensatory and punitive damages, back pay, front pay, reinstatement, attorneys’ fees, and other equitable relief.
The common patterns
Refusal to hire. A qualified LGBTQ+ candidate rejected on facially neutral grounds after the employer becomes aware of the candidate’s orientation or gender identity. Comparators — how similarly situated candidates were treated — are typically dispositive.
Termination. A worker fired after coming out, after transitioning, after their partner attended a work event, after the employer learns of a marriage. Employer justifications are frequently pretextual and are often exposed through internal communications.
Harassment. Slurs, insults, exclusion, ridicule, sexualized comments, unwanted touching. The NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and NJLAD each treat this conduct as actionable at a threshold well below the pre-2019 federal standard. Even under Title VII, repeated slurs and hostile treatment because of orientation or gender identity meet the Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), standard.
Pronoun and name misuse. Repeated, intentional refusal to use a transgender or nonbinary worker’s correct pronouns and name is unlawful under the NYCHRL and NJLAD. The NYCCHR’s guidance treats it as gender-based harassment. Isolated slips are handled differently from a pattern of refusal.
Bathroom, locker room, and facilities access. Denying access to facilities consistent with a worker’s gender identity is actionable under the NYCHRL and NJLAD. The 2020 amendments to New York’s regulations and the NYCCHR’s guidance are explicit on the point.
Dress and grooming codes. Sex-differentiated dress codes that are enforced only against gender-nonconforming workers, or that penalize transgender workers for dressing consistently with their gender identity, violate the NYCHRL, NYSHRL, and NJLAD. Under Title VII after Bostock, they are likely also unlawful.
Health benefits. Employer-sponsored plans that exclude transition-related medical care, or that provide asymmetric benefits to same-sex spouses, are actionable under the NYCHRL and NJLAD as gender or sexual-orientation discrimination. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116, and post-Bostock HHS regulations impose additional constraints on covered plans.
Family and bereavement leave. Denial of parental leave, bereavement leave, or family status recognition to same-sex spouses or non-biological parents.
Religious accommodation — the intersection
Employers sometimes assert religious objection as a reason for adverse treatment of LGBTQ+ workers. The Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), heightened the burden employers must meet to establish “undue hardship” when denying an employee’s religious accommodation request under Title VII — but Groff addressed accommodation of a worker’s religious practice, not an employer’s religious defense to a discrimination claim.
A separate line of cases addresses employers’ religious defenses. In Bostock, the Court declined to address the interaction with Title VII’s religious-organization exemption and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, leaving those issues for future cases. Since 2020, the federal courts have decided several of those cases, with mixed results depending on the identity of the employer and the nature of the accommodation.
For workers with New York and New Jersey employers, the more important point is that the NYCHRL and NJLAD do not incorporate RFRA-style defenses. The state and local statutes are the more reliable route in most LGBTQ+ discrimination cases.
Evidence
- Internal communications discussing the worker’s orientation, gender identity, or transition — including “concerned” emails, HR notes, and manager conversations produced in discovery.
- Comparators — how similarly situated non-LGBTQ+ workers were treated on the same job dimension.
- Documentation of complaints, requests for pronouns or facilities access, and the employer’s response.
- Records of benefits denials, exclusions, or asymmetric treatment.
- Timing — the sequence between a coming-out, transition, or partner recognition and the adverse action.
- Preserved messages showing hostility, slurs, or ridicule.
What to do
- Document the timeline. When you came out, when you transitioned, when the employer learned of your relationship, and every adverse action that followed.
- Preserve messages. Screenshot texts, DMs, and emails; forward to a personal account.
- Report in writing. If you are experiencing harassment or a denial, an internal written complaint creates the record. Consider counsel before submitting.
- Identify comparators. Coworkers with similar work histories and treatment.
- Do not sign a severance offer at termination. Take it home. Consult before signing.
- Talk to a lawyer. The choice of statute — Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, NJLAD — meaningfully affects the standard, the defenses, and the damages available.
If you are experiencing LGBTQ+ discrimination or harassment at work in New York or New Jersey, contact Fingerhut Law for a confidential consultation.
Attorney Advertising Disclaimer: This article is attorney advertising and is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.