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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more