Anderson & Boback Logo

Will a Corporate Dispute be a Win for the LGBT community?

Published
Categorized as Divorce Litigation

In a decision on Tuesday, January 21, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in a corporate case, Smithkline Beecham Corporation, DBA GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories (GSK v. Abbott), that a party cannot dismiss a juror for being a homosexual. This case arose from a corporate dispute between GSK and Abbott regarding the pricing of HIV medications. While selecting the jury in this matter, Abbott used one of their strikes to dismiss the only juror who identified himself as a homosexual. GSK argued that Abbott could not strike the juror simply on the basis of sexual orientation. The Ninth Circuit held that, not only are classifications based on sexual orientation subject to heightened scrutiny, but it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to strike a juror based on sexual orientation. In order to understand why this is important, we must first discuss what the term “heightened scrutiny” means and how this could affect future legislation.

When analyzing whether a law or action that differentiates between certain groups of people violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, Courts apply a standard of review based upon the group being allegedly discriminated against. There are three different standards of review: rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. The first, rational basis review, is the easiest standard of review to overcome. It simply states that, if a law differentiates between classes of people, there must be some rational reason for doing so. As a result, when a law is reviewed under this standard, it is almost always upheld. However, if the Court cannot think of a rational basis for the law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutional. Historically, rational basis review has been applied to cases involving classifications based on sexual orientation.

The second standard of review, intermediate scrutiny, states that the class must serve an important governmental objective and the means are substantially related to achieving that objective. Therefore, if the Court finds that there is no important government objective which justifies the alleged discrimination, then the law will be deemed a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This standard is routinely applied to laws that differentiate classes of people based upon gender. Finally, the third standard of review, strict scrutiny, provides the highest level of protection and is the most difficult to overcome. This standard states that the means must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Therefore, if the Court finds that there is no compelling government interest which justifies the alleged discrimination, then the law will be deemed unconstitutional. This standard is applied to laws that differentiate based upon race.

In GSK v. Abbott, the Court merely stated that sexual orientation is subject to a “heightened scrutiny” and even discussed why it was not specifying which heightened level of scrutiny to apply. Regardless, this case is currently being appealed to the United States Supreme Court, so it is not certain whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision will even stand. However, if it does, then the LGBT community as a whole will receive higher protection under the Equal Protection Clause than ever before.

Was this information helpful?

You May Also Like

When a couple is considering a divorce, oftentimes there is a discussion about the house and who will live there during the divorce process.  Whether it is rented or purchased, some people decide that they would like to remain living…

Typically, you’d want to avoid a default when you are going through a divorce in Chicago because if not, then the way your marital estate is divided is out of your hands. Recently a client hired us to help her…

Spousal support is often a contentious issue in marriages that are substantial in length, where one spouse has outearned the other spouse.  Spousal support (formerly called alimony and often referred to as maintenance) is the payment of money from one…

There is a lot of disagreement about vaccinations for children and the argument between parents with differing views on this subject is not a new one.  Illinois family law attorneys representing parents in this type of disagreement have worked throughout…

There are many things that parents do when they are going through a separation from a partner or a divorce where a parent could lose custody - or impact their rights to make decisions for their minor children going forward,…

In my experience as a Chicago divorce attorney, when it comes to which spouse initiates a divorce in a marriage it is more often the wife.  Of course, there are plenty of husbands who file for divorce but in a…

RECENT POST
Categories
Archives
Anderson & Boback small logo

Download our Divorce Planning Guide today!

Get the information you need to prepare for divorce with our free resource Guide to Planning for Your Divorce.

What our clients are saying

Why Choose
ANDERSON & BOBACK?

Schedule a Discreet Consultation Today!

    Firm Overview
    ANDERSON & BOBACK?

    Anderson & Boback is a highly-respected, experienced Chicago family law firm, skilled in negotiation and litigation. When divorce and other family law issues make your life chaotic and uncertain, you want your case resolved as quickly and fairly as possible. Call Now 312-715-0870