Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda was a landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case arose when skydiving instructor Donald Zarda was terminated after disclosing his sexual orientation to a customer, and the court determined that such discrimination is inherently a form of sex discrimination. This profile provides a durable explanation of the ruling, its reasoning, and its lasting impact on employment law and LGBTQ workplace protections.
Background and Context
Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express, a New York-based company. In 2010, Zarda disclosed he was gay to a female customer to alleviate her concerns about being strapped to a male instructor during a tandem jump. Shortly thereafter, Zarda was terminated. He had previously complained to management about the company’s alleged discriminatory practices. The central issue before the Second Circuit was whether firing someone for being gay constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Attribute | Verified Detail | Source Type |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Donald Zarda | Court records |
| Employer | Altitude Express Inc. | Court records |
| Grounds of Adverse Action | Disclosed being gay to a customer | Court opinion |
| Circuit | Second Circuit (New York) | Court opinion |
| Key Holding | Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination | Court opinion |
| Year Decided | 2018 (en banc) | Court records |
Legal Proceedings and Ruling
Zarda filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later sued, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment for Altitude Express, but the Second Circuit reversed en banc. In a detailed opinion, the court reasoned that judging an employee based on their sexual orientation necessarily involves considering the employee’s sex and would not occur but for the employee’s sex. This established that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a subset of sex discrimination. The decision aligned with other circuits and contributed to a broader national consensus.
Major Holdings at a Glance
- Sexual orientation discrimination is inherently a form of sex discrimination.
- An employer who fires someone for being gay treats individuals differently based on sex.
- Title VII’s protections extend to LGBTQ employees in the Second Circuit.
Reasoning and Legal Standards
The court applied the familiar framework that Title VII prohibits discrimination because of, not merely in spite of, sex. It emphasized that discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be separated from sex, because it involves preferences, behaviors, or identity that are tied to sex. The ruling reinforced that policies drawing distinctions based on sex—such as permitting romantic relations with one sex but not another—are unlawful under Title VII. The court’s analysis drew on both precedent and the evolving recognition of LGBTQ rights in employment contexts.
Test Factors from the Opinion
| Factor | Detail | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory Criterion | Employee’s sexual orientation | Tied to employee’s sex |
| Comparators | Different treatment based on sex of partner | Illustrates sex-based decision-making |
| Causation | Adverse action because of gay orientation | Considered sex-based |
Practical Implications and Workplace Impact
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda clarified for employers that terminating or otherwise disadvantaging an employee for being gay is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII in the Second Circuit. For employees, the decision reinforced protections against orientation-based bias and provided a pathway to challenge such actions. Employers were reminded to revisit policies, training, and complaint procedures to ensure alignment with the ruling. Human resources practices that ignore or explicitly penalize LGBTQ status risk liability under this framework.
Immediate Workplace Takeaways
- Orientation-based decisions are treated as sex-based decisions.
- Employers must ensure policies and training reflect this standard.
- Employees have recourse through EEOC charges and private litigation.
Broader Significance and Legacy
Beyond the Second Circuit, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda contributed to the growing judicial recognition that LGBTQ workplace protections fall within Title VII. The ruling complemented developments in other circuits and informed subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including Bostock v. Clayton County, which ultimately held that Title VII covers sexual orientation and gender identity nationwide. As an evergreen precedent, the case remains a cornerstone reference for employment discrimination claims involving LGBTQ individuals and continues to shape policy and practice across the United States.
Related Developments
- Guidance from the EEOC interpreting sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
- State and local laws that independently protect LGBTQ employees.
- Ongoing training and policy reviews recommended for employers.