Caffarelli & Associates LtD

News

2 minutes read

Seventh Circuit Holds that Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation Violates Title VII

Published

For the past several years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has interpreted the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination to include claims based upon sexual orientation, and on April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the EEOC in the case of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. The Hively decision is the first time that a federal court of appeals has adopted the EEOC’s position. The Plaintiff, Kimberly Hively, was an openly gay, part-time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana. Although she applied for multiple full-time positions between 2009 and 2014, the college declined to renew her contract and she sued, claiming that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation. Based upon Seventh Circuit precedent, the district court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not constitute “sex discrimination” as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and thus dismissed Hively’s claims. A panel of the Seventh Circuit reluctantly affirmed based upon Seventh Circuit precedent, but cited the shifting legal landscape in light of recent Supreme Court and other Seventh Circuit opinions. The panel decision was then reviewed and overturned by the full Seventh Circuit, which explained that adverse employment actions taken on the basis of sexual orientation were in fact a “subset of actions taken on the basis of sex.” Focusing its analysis on prior gender nonconformity cases (which violate Title VII), the court reasoned that Hively was being treated differently in the same manner – because of her nonconformity with heterosexual women, who are stereotypically attracted to men. Consequently, the court concluded that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the functional equivalent of discrimination based upon that person’s sex. The Seventh Circuit also relied upon Hively’s right to freedom of association. Because the Seventh Circuit’s holding conflicts with every other Circuit, it is likely that the Supreme Court will take up and settle this issue on a national basis.

Back to News

Recent Posts

Blog

Northern District Encourages Updated Definition of “Product”

Additional case law has been added to the proposition that a “product” can include items such as software. In Penzick v. Constrafor Inc., 25 C 4555 N.D. Ill. (Jan. 29, 2026) (Durkin, J.), Judge Durkin called the argument that “software is intangible property” and thus not a product “an obsolete perspective.” Defendant moved to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was brought under the Illinois Sales Representative Act (“SRA”). 820 ILCS 120/1(1). Defendant argued that it was not liable...

Read More
Blog

Trauma Informed Lawyering in Workplace Sexual Harassment and Abuse Cases

At Caffarelli & Associates, we take great care in representing survivors of workplace sexual harassment and abuse. We understand that coming forward about sexual misconduct at work is not only a legal step, but a deeply personal one. Many survivors carry the effects of trauma long after the harassment or assault occurs. We approach every case with care, respect, and sensitivity. Trauma-informed advocacy means we recognize the impact that workplace harassment and assault can have on a person. We prioritize...

Read More
Blog

When “Training Agreements” Become Forced Labor: Federal Court Applies Anti- Trafficking Laws to Coercive Employment Contracts

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois highlights that forced labor and human trafficking laws apply far beyond what most people imagine as traditional trafficking scenarios. In Melone v. Niki Moon Salon, LLC, Case No. 25-C-5445 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2025) (Gettleman, J.), the court allowed claims under the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act (TVPA) and the Illinois Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act (ITVPA) to proceed based on an employer’s use of a coercive...

Read More