Ad Code

Responsive Advertisement

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules That Businesses Do Not Have To Hire Transgender Employees Against Their Religious Beliefs

DALLAS, Tx. - The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a business owned by Christians can claim exemption from federal discrimination law and make decisions about hiring or retaining employees based on their sexual orientation and gender, in line with the company's religious beliefs. 

In the case of Braidwood Management v. EEOC, a three-judge panel unanimously decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 can protect a private entity, not just a church, from being required to employ someone whose beliefs or conduct do not align with the company's religious views. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from enforcing laws that may have a negative impact on a person's ability to freely practice their religion, even if the law is neutral in nature. 

In the scenario presented in the court case, the court ruled the RFRA provides protection to a business of Christian faith, allowing them to refrain from employing individuals who identify as homosexual or gender-dysphoric, if such individuals do not align with the company's biblical beliefs regarding sexuality and marriage. 


Braidwood Management Inc., a company based in Texas, reportedly operates according to Christian beliefs and doctrine, which includes the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. The company filed a case against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for not hiring individuals who engage in behavior that is considered "sexually immoral or gender non-conforming." According to the EEOC in the lawsuit, discrimination against LGBT employees is considered a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex-based discrimination. Following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, the EEOC reportedly revised its enforcement policies to allow for lawsuits against employers for LGBT discrimination. 

Click here to join our Facebook group to receive news updates and join the conversation.

In June 2020, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) considered the Bostock case, which involved several lawsuits. One of the cases involved a man who identified as homosexual and was terminated from his county job after expressing interest in starting an LGBT softball league at work. Another case involved a funeral home employee who was fired after dressing in clothing typically associated with a different gender. The High Court has made a ruling stating that terminating an employee based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity is a violation of Title VII. In the majority opinion of Bostock, Justice Neil Gorsuch mentioned that employers who hold religious objections towards employing LGBT individuals may have the opportunity to present their claims in their respective cases. 

Braidwood requested a court exemption under the RFRA to protect itself from potential EEOC enforcement that could impede its ability to conduct business in accordance with its religious beliefs. 

The Appeals Court reportedly granted an exemption stating that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) mandates Braidwood to be exempted from Title VII on an individual level. The court believed that complying with Title VII would significantly impede Braidwood's ability to operate according to its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. 

According to the Court, Braidwood holds religious beliefs that support heterosexual marriage as the only type of marriage approved by God, consider pre-marital sex to be inappropriate, and believe that individuals should dress and act in accordance with their biological sex. The court believed EEOC guidance was likely to impose a burden on Braidwood's religious practice.

Additionally, according to the Court's opinion, Title VII presented Braidwood with two difficult choices. The available options were either to act against the law while following their beliefs or to follow the law while acting against their beliefs.

The Court then stated that having to hire an employee who acts in a way that goes against the company's beliefs can be a significant challenge and may impede the practice of Braidwood's values. And that the RFRA is intended to prevent that. 

Braidwood made a request for class-action status in the case, representing other religious businesses. However, the judges denied that request because they were unable to determine if the codes of conduct of other employers were similar enough to Braidwood's to resolve their lawfulness in one stroke. The decision implies that the exemption is solely applicable to Braidwood. 

Post a Comment