GENERAL INTEREST sexually discriminate against a heterosexual male subordinate employee. The Seventh and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals 6 relied on the Price Waterhouse and Oncale line of cases to hold that Title VII does protect LGBTQI+ employees from discrimination and retaliation based on sexual orientation. Both Circuit cases found that sexual orientation was so entwined with sex that it was clear Title VII included sexual orientation. Fourth Circuit case law still presents a significant obstacle to the success of a LGBTQI+ discrimination claim. Specifically, in Proud v. Stone , the Fourth Circuit carved out a safety net for employers by holding that a “strong inference” of nondiscrimination ex-ists where the “same actor” — the supervisor who both hired and terminated the employee — made the employment decisions within “a short period of time.” 7 As a result, direct evidence of animus to-wards LGBTQI+ individuals has been found insufficient to overcome the Proud inference and extend workplace protections to these employees. 8 Examples of direct evidence found insufficient to overcome Proud include no punishment for a male subordinate em-ployee who was openly insubordinate to the gay and female plaintiff ’s authority in profane terms, statements, such as “the problem with gay people is my preacher has to marry them,” and a male supervisor giving implied consent to the plaintiff ’s male co-equal counterpart to surveil this plaintiff during working hours. 9 Accordingly, the implication of the Proud inference could derail Title VII protections for LGBTQI+ employees by essentially per-mitting sex-based discrimination, so long as the LGBTQI+ individual was employed for a short period of time and the “same actor” was involved in the discriminatory conduct. The VVA, as written, overcomes these significant issues found in federal jurispru-dence with respect to LGBTQI+ employees. While the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bostock held that LGBTQI+ employees are protected under Title VII, the signifi-cant hurdles for plaintiffs still exist. In the federal courts, for example, a plaintiff must still overcome the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense, and the Proud inference, as discussed above. The VVA writes on a clean slate, giving a plaintiff the opportunity to litigate on a level playing field in state court. www.vsb.org Virginia Values Act LGBTQI+ Protections The VVA, which went into effect on July 1, 2020, essentially revises and reinvigorates the formerly toothless Virginia Human Rights Act (previously only applying to employ-ers with between 5 and 15 employees and providing precious few remedies within the previous private right of action 10 ). The VVA creates a private cause of action against employers with fifteen or more employees in most instances (in some situations, such as employees who were discriminatorily terminated from employment, five employ-ees is sufficient) and, of particular note, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, public and private employment, public accommodations, and access to credit. Accordingly, Virginia has made it clear that sexual orientation and gender identi-ty are protected characteristics within the Commonwealth in all aspects of life. The Commonwealth of Virginia is the first southern state to provide sweeping anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQI+ community... Virginia Values Act in General VVA legislation also extends important protections to Virginians on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions (lac-tation included), age, marital status, disability, and status as a veteran. However, before a civil cause of ac-tion may be brought in a court of the Commonwealth, an aggrieved individual must file a complaint with the Division of Human Rights (“DHR”), participate in an administrative process, and receive a notice of right to commence a civil action. This tracks with the similar requirement under many federal laws (such as Title VII), which require a complainant to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), participate in the administrative investigative process, and receive a notice GENERAL INTEREST FEATURES | VOL. 69 | AUGUST 2020 | VIRGINIA LAWYER 27