Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Management, No. 18-1104 (8th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII against Midwest after it allegedly withdrew his job offer after learning that he was gay. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal based on Williamson v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1989), and remanded for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 590 U.S. ___, Nos. 17-1618, 17-1623, 18-107, slip op. at 4 (June 15, 2020), which held that it "defies" Title VII for "an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender," because to do so, it "must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex."

Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Title VII. This court's opinion in Williamson v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1989) holding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals has been reversed by Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 590 U.S.___ (June 15, 2020), and the district court's judgment based on application of Williamson is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1104 ___________________________ Mark Horton Plaintiff - Appellant v. Midwest Geriatric Management, LLC Defendant - Appellee -----------------------------Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; State of Iowa; State of Minnesota; State of California; State of Connecticut; State of Hawaii; State of Maryland; State of Massachusetts; State of New Jersey; State of New Mexico; State of New York; State of Oregon; State of Vermont; State of Virginia; State of Washington; District of Columbia; Kargo; State of Illinois; 9 to 5 National Association of Working Women; A Better Balance; AdRoll, Inc.; Airbnb; American Association of University Women; American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri; Anti-Defamation League; BASF Corporation; Bend the Arc; CBS Corporation; Caldwell Partners; California Women's Law Center; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Christopher Street Financial; Citrix Systems, Inc.; City National Bank; Clockwork; Coalition of Labor Union Women; Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic; Deutsche Bank; Diageo North America, Inc.; Diversified Health and Wellness Center, LLC; DoorDash, Inc; Dropbox, Inc.; Eastern Bank; Edelman; Equal Rights Advocates; Feminist Majority Foundation; FiftyThree, Inc.; Freedom for All Americans Education Fund; GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders; Gender Justice; Gusto; Hindu American Foundation; IAC/InterActiveCorp; Interfaith Alliance Foundation; KEO Marketing Inc.; Legal Momentum; Legal Voice; Levi Strauss & Company; Linden Research, Inc.; Lyft; MassMutual; Mapbox; Microsoft Corporation; Morgan Stanley; NIO U.S.; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Council of Jewish Women; National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce; National Organization for Women Foundation; National Partnership for Women and Families; National Women's Law Center; OBOX Solutions; Out Leadership; Paypal Holdings Inc; Pinterest; RBC Bank (Georgia); RBC Capital Markets, LLC; Replacements, Ltd.; Rhapsody International Inc; Royal Bank of Canada; Southwest Women's Law Center; St. Louis and Kansas City Missouri Chapters of the National Employment Lawyers Association; The Estee Lauder Companies; Thumbtack, Inc.; Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; Witeck Communications; Women Employed; Women of Reform Judaism; Women's Law Center of Maryland, Inc.; Women's Law Project; eBay; Salesforce.com, Inc. Amici on Behalf of Appellant The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; State of Arkansas; State of Louisiana; State of Missouri; State of Nebraska; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of Texas Amici on Behalf of Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: April 17, 2019 Filed: July 6, 2020 [Published] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mark Horton sued Midwest Geriatric Management, LLC, after it allegedly withdrew his job offer upon learning that he was gay. He claimed that this act constituted sex discrimination under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (prohibiting a “refus[al] to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . sex”). The district court, relying on our precedent, dismissed the case. See Williamson v. A.G. 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. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We stayed Horton’s appeal pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of the “scope of Title VII’s protections for homosexual and transgender persons.” Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 590 U.S. ___, Nos. 17-1618, 17-1623, 18-107, slip op. at 4 (June 15, 2020); see Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 139 S. Ct. 1599 (Apr. 22, 2019) (order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari). In its decision, the Court held that it “defies” Title VII for “an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender,” because to do so, it “must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex.” Bostock, 590 U.S. at ___, slip op. at 12, 33. In light of this holding, our contrary conclusion in Williamson is no longer good law. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings in light of Bostock.1 ______________________________ 1 Horton alleged two other claims: religious discrimination under Title VII and fraudulent inducement. Only the former, which the district court described as “a repackag[ing]” of his sex-discrimination claim, is before us on appeal. (Citation omitted). This claim, too, warrants another look in light of Bostock. 3

Primary Holding

Dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII action reversed and the case remanded in light of Bostock v. Clayton Cty.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.