Uncertainty remains over same-sex spousal benefits in Texas, while other LGBT rights are coming under attack on the federal level by the Trump administration.

The fight over whether the city of Houston can offer same-sex spousal benefits is being played out in the case Pidgeon v. Turner, Scott M. Wich, an attorney with Clifton Budd & DeMaria LLP in New York City writes in the Society for Human Resource Management blog.

The Texas Supreme Court has directed both parties in the case to return to the trial court to litigate whether the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of state Defense of Marriage Acts in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges, means that states that had such laws are now required to provide employment benefits to same-sex spouses.

Recommended For You

"The Texas Supreme Court declined to decide the issue," Wich writes. "In so doing, it found that there is an open question as to whether Obergefell — which by its express terms held that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages to the extent they do opposite-sex marriages — compels a conclusion that tax-funded employee benefits must also be afforded on an equal basis. The state's highest court concluded that the trial court must consider the issue in light of Obergefell, but is not compelled to reach the conclusion that had been urged by the city of Houston."

Wich ends his post with a "professional pointer," reminding employers that state and local laws continue to fill the gaps that states on both sides of the political spectrum view as existing under federal law.

"Human resources professionals should take care to review all applicable laws when making policies and decisions affecting the workplace," he writes.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is creating uncertainty on other LBGT rights on the federal level, attorneys at the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP write in the JD Supra blog.

The Department of Justice recently filed an amicus brief in the case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., arguing that, contrary to its prior position — and that of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not prohibited under Title VII as harassment on the basis of gender, according to the attorneys.

"The sudden reversal of the Department of Justice injects further uncertainty in the already unsettled landscape of LGBT protections under Title VII," the attorneys write. "Employers can expect this uncertainty to continue until the issue is addressed by either Congress or by the Supreme Court. Employers seeking to navigate this in flux legal landscape should work closely with counsel."

The Trump administration also revoked Executive Order 13673, which required federal government contractors and prospective contractors to show compliance with Order 13672, an order that barred federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"While the nondiscrimination order remains in place, the order that would hold contractors accountable has been revoked," the attorneys write. "Revocation of Order 13673 has created uncertainty among federal contractors as to their responsibilities, and as to appropriate best practices. To remain compliant with Order 13672, employers should work closely with counsel."

The federal protection of transgender bathroom rights in schools is also now unclear, after the Trump administration revoked the Department of Education's guidance that transgender students were protected under Title IX on the basis of gender identity.

"Absent legal mandates to the contrary, schools can continue to offer protections to their transgender students consistent with their beliefs as to what is in the best interest of students," the attorneys write. "Schools that seek to limit bathroom access to the sex-at-birth assigned to their students will need to grapple with how they can enact and implement such a rule while still complying with the present DOE guidance, which provides that LGBT students must be assured that they 'are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment' and cannot be subjected to discrimination."

Moreover, the administration is also working to unwind the anti-discrimination protections in health care delivery, outlined in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, according to the attorneys.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Katie Kuehner-Hebert

Katie Kuehner-Hebert is a freelance writer based in Running Springs, Calif. She has more than three decades of journalism experience, with particular expertise in employee benefits and other human resource topics.