Skip to main content

Breaking: Court of Appeals Holds Title VII Protects LGBT Employees From Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace


Yesterday, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that LGBT employees are protected from workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  (Note, three judges on the Seventh Circuit who previously heard this case last year held that Title VII did not provide a cause of action for sexual orientation discrimination claims.  The full Seventh Circuit eventually heard arguments on the case and then issued this decision yesterday). 

The eight judges, who ruled in favor of the employee, expanded the scope of coverage that had traditionally been afforded to employees under Title VII.  Readers might recall that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee based on their "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."  However, Title VII does not explicitly define discrimination "based on sex".  Some courts have held that "sex" refers to only male or female, while others have argued that it extends to sexual orientation.  However, with this ruling, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that sexual orientation discrimination claims brought by employees against their employers are actionable under Title VII. 

This case arises out of an incident in 2009 when someone reported seeing adjunct teacher, Kim Hively, kissing her girlfriend in the parking lot of Ivy Tech Community College (where Hively taught).  Hively was apparently reprimanded and chastised for her behavior by an administrator.  Over the subsequent five years, Hively was not granted full time status (despite multiple applications) and she was eventually let go in 2014.  Hively brought suit against the school herself and claimed she was "blocked from fulltime employment without just cause" because of her sexual preference.

With the Court of Appeals issuing its opinion yesterday, the case will now go back to the United States District Court in the Northern District of Indiana, which had previously ruled in favor of Ivy Tech and dismissed Hively's case.  An attorney for Ivy Tech indicated the school will not seek Supreme Court review of the Seventh Circuit decision and will instead defend against the suit in district court.  For the time being, this case proceeds along to an eventual trial.  However, with a split among circuits on how to apply Title VII to these types of cases, it is possible (and likely) that a case addressing the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in regard to sexual orientation discrimination claims brought by LGBT employees will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more