During voir dire in a civil case involving HIV medications, Juror B stated that he had a male partner, had taken an Abbott or GSK medication, and had friends with HIV. Abbott used its first peremptory strike against Juror B, the only juror who identified himself on the record as gay. GSK raised a Batson objection, arguing that the strike was based on sexual orientation, especially given the case's subject matter and its significance in the gay community. Abbott declined to provide a neutral explanation at trial, instead disputing whether Batson applied and claiming it did not know Juror B was gay.
Issue
Does the Equal Protection Clause prohibit the use of peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation? If so, did Abbott violate Batson by striking Juror B on that basis in this civil trial?
Rule
Classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny under equal protection. Because gays and lesbians are not a group normally subject to rational basis review, Batson applies to peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation, and a strike motivated by a juror's sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Under Batson, the challenger must make a prima facie showing of discrimination, the striking party must offer a nondiscriminatory reason, and the court then determines whether purposeful discrimination occurred.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a civil products-liability trial in Los Angeles, one prospective juror voluntarily states on the record that she lives with her wife. Defense counsel uses a peremptory strike on her immediately after asking no questions about impartiality, and plaintiff objects that the strike was based on sexual orientation.
How should the trial court rule under the governing doctrine?
Explanation. The majority held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny and that Batson applies to peremptory strikes made on that basis. It also rejected the ideas that Batson does not apply in civil cases or that a challenger must show exclusion of all members of the group. Here, the juror voluntarily identified her sexual orientation on the record, was struck immediately, and counsel did not meaningfully question impartiality, which is enough to support a prima facie inference. (Derived from SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories (2014).)