Sex discrimination still requires sex, 5th Circuit clarifies

I know the headline sounds a bit Zen, but please bear with me. After the U.S. Supreme Court found in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against sexual orientation discrimination, some have advocated the overall standards for proving sex discrimination were relaxed. Not so, as one former Texas police officer recently learned.

Trouble in the ranks

Brandy Newbury had a short career in law enforcement with the city of Windcrest. She started working as a police officer in March 2016. The stint ended in January 2017 with her resignation. Here is what got sandwiched in the middle.

Newbury worked with female officer Blanca Jaime. Once, they butted heads over the grammar used in a report (I didn’t know people did that anymore!). On another occasion, they confronted each other over Newbury’s apparent failure to be in the field without her training officer present.

Newbury also claimed Jaime gave her dirty looks, was dismissive of her, and refused to shake her hand.

Newbury complained to Windcrest as early as April 2016. The city hired a law firm to investigate. The firm concluded that while Jaime had been rude, there was no indication of sex discrimination as the motivating factor in her conduct. Instead, the probe revealed Jaime allegedly was rude to both women and men.