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

A Call for Comprehensive Fee Shifting for Employment-Law Claims

By Alejandro Caffarelli, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. Access to justice in employment law remains an elusive promise for the vast majority of American workers. While an array of federal and state laws purport to protect workers, the mechanisms for enforcing those rights are often inaccessible, rendering them meaningless. Administrative agencies and state equivalents tasked with investigating discrimination and wage violations, for example, are often chronically underfunded and subject to political erosion. As demonstrated by recent changes at the Equal Employment...

Read More
General

Supreme Court Bars State Administrative Hurdles for Federal Civil Rights Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday in the case of Williams v. Washington (No. 23-191) that an Alabama law requiring people to go through the state’s administrative process before filing federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision found that the law created an unfair barrier to asserting federal rights. The law, upheld by Alabama’s Supreme Court in 2023, required unemployment benefits claimants to complete the state’s appeals process before going to court....

Read More
General

Supreme Court Rules on FLSA Evidence Standards in Overtime Exemption Case

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that disputes over Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemptions do not require heightened evidence standards. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, rejected employees’ arguments for a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, reaffirming that the preponderance of evidence standard is appropriate in civil litigation unless explicitly altered by statute, constitutional requirements, or precedent involving severe government actions. The case, EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, centered on whether a higher standard should apply in...

Read More