SHRM’s Interpretation of ‘Marital Status’ Discrimination Prevails

On April 8, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a broad interpretation of “marital status,” aligning with SHRM’s advocacy on this issue. Marital status does not mean marriage to a particular person, the court ruled, but instead should be understood as encompassing the state of being single, married, divorced, etc.

Kelvin Hunter, the plaintiff, was married to daytime television host Wendy Williams and served as executive producer of “The Wendy Williams Show” from November 2007 to April 2019, which was during their marriage. 

In April 2019, Hunter was notified that Williams was filing for divorce. A week later, Hunter was informed that he’d been terminated. He claimed this was solely because of his marital status and not for job performance. He sued Debmar-Mercury, which produced and distributed the show, claiming his termination violated the New York City Human Rights Law’s prohibition against discrimination based on “marital status.”  

Debmar-Mercury moved to dismiss, but the district court denied the motion. 

On appeal, the 2nd Circuit considered whether the ordinance encompasses an employee’s marital status in relation to a particular person. The 2nd Circuit agreed with a New York State Court of Appeals’ interpretation in a separate case that “marital status refers to whether a person is participating in a marriage, not the nature of one’s relationship with another specific person.” 

Hunter challenged adverse actions undertaken based on his divorce relative to a specific person, not his general status as married, unmarried, or divorced, the 2nd Circuit noted, vacating the district court’s order and sending the case back for further proceedings.

SHRM’s Arguments

SHRM had maintained in two amicus briefs in the case that:

• To avoid confusion and unnecessary litigation, laws should be interpreted according to their plain meaning, especially laws such as the New York City Human Rights Law that impose individual liability. This means sticking with the common understanding of marital status to mean single, married, divorced, etc., so that parties can understand their rights, responsibilities, and obligations under the law.
• Hunter’s overly broad interpretation of “marital status” contradicted the provision’s intended purpose, was not supported by legislative history, and could potentially unfairly grant extra protections to married or divorced employees, unlike their unmarried counterparts involved in workplace relationships.
• Hunter’s interpretations would have serious and adverse consequences for employers and employees. Employers have legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to manage workplace discord following the end of a marriage between co-workers. 
• Hunter’s interpretation would create conflicting legal obligations for multistate employers. Courts have generally adopted a narrower definition of “marital status” in other states’ anti-discrimination laws than what Hunter was proposing.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “marital status” as “the condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed,” SHRM’s Jan. 23, 2024, brief noted. 

Hunter “has not provided any support for the notion that ‘marital status’ is ordinarily understood to mean the ‘status’ of being married to a particular person — and SHRM is aware of no such authority,” said the brief, written by Robert Szyba, an attorney with Seyfarth in New York City.

“In the absence of ordinarily understandable guidance, HR professionals’ ability to resolve and de-escalate workplace conflicts before employees resort to litigation in court — one of the vital roles of HR professionals — would be severely hamstrung,” the SHRM brief said.