green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
42.8 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases ·
…title vii does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jameka K. Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital
(2×)
title vii does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wrightson v. Pizza Hut
title vii does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nicole Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
title vii does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Management
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989) (per 2 curiam) (“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.”); see also Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bostock v. Clayton County
(2×)
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F. 2d 69, 70 (CA8 1989) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1089 (1990); DeSantis v. Pa- cific Tel. & Tel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bohling v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989)). 2 To the extent that the plaintiff suggests that "there is no remaining jurisdiction for this case to be in federal court," filing 8 at 2, she is incorrect: because federal question jurisdiction existed when the case was removed, the Court has discretion to retain jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.
(2×)
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); see also Johnson v. Frank, EEOC Decision No. 01911827, 1991 WL 1189760 , at *3 (Dec. 19, 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
(2×)
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989); Medina v. Income Support Div., 413 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 2005); Fredette v. BVP Mgmt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989); Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979); but see Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2002) (gay male employee taunted and harassed by coworkers for having feminine traits successfully pleaded claim of sex harassment under Title VII).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Pittman v. Cook Paper Recycling Corporation
(2×)
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989).' .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pambianchi v. Arkansas Tech University
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Edwards & Sons, 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robertson v. Siouxland Community Health Center
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989); accord Vickers v. Fairfield Med.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ayala-Sepulveda v. Municipality of San German
Edwards & Sons, 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989)); see also Bibby v. Phila.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schroer v. Billington
Edwards & Sons, 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Edward Jones & Co.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Medina Rene v. Mgm Grand Hotel, Inc.
(2×)
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam). 73 More recently the Third Circuit in Bibby v. Phila.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
John Bibby v. Phila. Coca Cola Bottling Company
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bibby v. Phila. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Medina Rene,plaintiff-Appellant v. Mgm Grand Hotel, Inc.,defendant-Appellee
(3×)
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dwayne Simonton v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.”); De-Santis v. Pacific Tel. & Tel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery v. Independent School District No. 709
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (holding that Title VII does not protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (same); Carrasco v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 2000 WL 520640 , at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinn v. Nassau County Police Department
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990); DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 608 F.2d 327, 329-30 (9th Cir.1979) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
Edwards & Sons, 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ca8 1999
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989), for its conclusion that harassment based on sexual orientation was not cognizable under Title VII.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicholas Schmedding v. Tnemec Co.
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989), for its conclusion that harassment based on sexual orientation was not cognizable under Title VII.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinn v. Nassau County Police Department
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based upon homosexuality), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990); Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081, 1085-87 (7th Cir.1984) (Title VII does not cover discrimination allegedly based upon fact that plaintiff was a transsexual), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 2023 , 85 L.Ed.2d 304 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simonton v. Runyon
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990) (Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based upon homosexuality); DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center, 807 F.2d 304, 308 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 825 , 108 S.Ct. 89 , 98 L.Ed.2d 50 (1987) (Title VII does not encompass disparate treatment based upon preferential treatment afforded to individual romantically involved with defendant-employer); Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081, 1085-87 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 ,…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Klein v. McGowan
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th *74 Cir.1989) (“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals”), cert. denied., 493 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990); DeSantis v. Pacific Tel. & Tel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Segreto v. Kirschner
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990); David v. Local 801, Danbury Fire Fighters Ass’n, 899 F.Supp. 78 (D.Conn.1995) (same); Gay Veterans Ass’n.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arthur Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.
(2×)
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) ("Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals."), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990); DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 608 F.2d 327, 329-30 (9th Cir.1979) ("Title VII's prohibition of 'sex' discrimination applies only to discrimination on the basis of gender and should not be judicially extended to include sexual preference such as homosexuality."), Wrightson does not allege that he was discriminated against because he is heterosexual.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
David v. Local 801, Danbury Fire Fighters Ass'n
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989) (“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quick v. Donaldson Co., Inc.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989)); see also Iowa Code Chapter 216.6(1)(a) (no protection for sexual orientation).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Plakio v. Congregational Home, Inc.
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, 493 U.S. 1089 , 110 S.Ct. 1158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990) (homosexuality); DeCintio, 807 F.2d at 306-07 (sexual liaisons or attractions); Ulane, 742 F.2d at 1086-87 (transsexuality); Sommers, 667 F.2d at 750; (transsexuality); James v. Ranch Mart Hardware, Inc., No. 94-2235-KHV, 1994 WL 731517 , 1994 U.S. Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelley v. Vaughn
Edwards and Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir.1989).
50 Fair empl.prac.cas. 95, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,060 Darrell N. Williamson
v.
A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Bruce Morgan
v.
A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Bruce Morgan
88-2421.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jun 30, 1989.
876 F.2d 69
Deborah L. Doak, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant., Thomas A. Mickes, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.
Arnold, Bowman, Magill, Per Curiam.
Cited by 62 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1) · D. South Dakota (1)
PER CURIAM.
Darrell Williamson, a black male, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. (Edwards), and Bruce Morgan, his former supervisor at Edwards, on Williamson’s claim that they discharged him on the basis of his race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1982) (Title VII), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We affirm.
Williamson worked for Edwards from November 1979 until May 1985 when he was discharged because of his disruptive and inappropriate conduct at work. In his one-count amended complaint, Williamson alleged that Morgan had falsely accused him of disrupting the workflow by continuing to discuss the details of his homosexual lifestyle in the workplace and harassing another employee, and that white employees who behaved as Williamson did were not disciplined. The district court granted summary judgment to Edwards finding that Williamson’s complaint and deposition testimony clearly indicated Williamson believed he had been treated differently because of his homosexuality and not his race. On appeal, Williamson argues the district court erred in failing to consider his allegations that similarly situated white homosexual employees, working in the same department at Edwards, were not harassed or terminated as he had been.
Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals. DeSantis v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1979). Cf. Sommers v. Budget Marketing, Inc., 667 F.2d 748 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (transsexuals). Similarly, section 1981 only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.
Although Williamson stated in his deposition that he believed he was treated differently because he was black, he failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that other similarly situated white employees were treated differently. He did not claim that the other white, alleged homosexuals behaved as he did (openly discussed their sex lives while at work), but only compared his behavior in that regard to the behavior of other heterosexuals. Although he alleged he was reprimanded for wearing makeup at work while the two other alleged white homosexuals were only reprimanded for wearing jewelry, there is no indication in the record that the other two men wore any makeup.
Accordingly, we affirm.