Breaking with Its Peers, Seventh Circuit Says Title VII Bans Sexual Orientation Discrimination

April 2017

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based on a person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Much debate has ensued over whether a person's sexual orientation is a subset of the protected class "sex." In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission answered the question in the affirmative. Yet, every federal appeals court to decide the issue had come to the opposite conclusion—until last month, when the 12-member Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago held that Title VII does indeed prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

In that case, Kimberly Hively sued her employer, Ivy Tech Community College, alleging that she was passed over for several full-time positions and that the college declined to renew her part-time contract because she is a lesbian. The trial court and a three-member panel of the Seventh Circuit agreed with Ivy Tech's assertion that sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title VII.

On appeal, Hively argued that if she had been a man married to a woman, and if all other facts were the same, Ivy Tech would not have refused to promote her and would not have fired her. Hively also argued that the actions taken against her constituted discrimination under an association theory, which prohibits discrimination because of an employee's association with a person in a protected class—in this case, gender.

Ivy Tech contended that Congress had repeatedly rejected attempts to add the words "sexual orientation" to Title VII's list of prohibited characteristics. Moreover, Ivy Tech asserted that no federal court had recognized sexual orientation as a protected class under federal law.

But the Seventh Circuit reasoned that Title VII has been understood to cover far more than simple decisions such as whether to hire a man or a woman for a given job. For example, the Seventh Circuit explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against sex discrimination reaches several circumstances not found in the plain language of the statute, including (1) sexual harassment, and even same-sex workplace harassment, (2) discrimination based on actuarial assumptions about a person's longevity, and (3) discrimination based on a person's failure to conform to a certain set of gender stereotypes.

The Court observed that when an employer discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, it makes assumptions about the proper behavior for someone of a given sex. In turn, the Court reasoned, such judgments cannot exist without taking into account the victim's biological sex, and any job decision based on the fact that the complainant—woman or man—dates or marries a same-sex partner, falls within Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on sex.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that "…it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex…." Accordingly, the Court held that "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination."

Although Ivy Tech has publicly stated that it will not appeal to the Supreme Court, it is likely that a similar case will reach the Supreme Court soon, given the significance of the decision and the split between the Seventh Circuit and its sister appeals courts.

The immediate impact of the decision is somewhat muted because two of the three states covered by the Seventh Circuit—Illinois and Wisconsin—already had laws explicitly prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. But employers in Indiana, which does not have such a law, now have to be mindful of a new federal prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination in employment.

Lewis Rice's Labor & Employment attorneys have extensive experience handling Title VII cases and other employment discrimination claims. Please feel free to contact us with questions or concerns regarding the Seventh Circuit's most recent employment case, or any other employment matter.

Firm Highlights
Client Alert

Have You Done Your Annual CCPA Housekeeping?

More
News

Lindsay S. C. Brinton and Meghan S. Largent Negotiate $1.4 Million Settlement for Landowners along Legacy Trail

More
Client Alert

CROWN Act Legislation on the Verge of Passage in St. Louis City & County

More
Client Alert

Federal Appellate Court Determines a Website Is Not a “Place of Public Accommodation” Under the ADA

More
Client Alert

New York State Regulator Discourages Ransomware Payments and Publishes New Cyber Insurance Risk Framework

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Gives Advice on Vaccination Acceptance in the Workforce in Society for Human Resource Management Article

More
Client Alert

Temporary COBRA Changes Under the American Rescue Plan Act

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Hands Down Unanimous Decision Limiting FTC’s Ability to Seek Monetary Relief

More
Client Alert

COVID-19 Rescue Plan Act Expands Paid Leave Availability but Does Not Revive Employer Mandates

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Two Lewis Rice Members Selected for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Programs

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Fatima G. Khan Elected President of South Asian Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Lewis Rice Member Ronald A. Norwood Serves on Missouri Bar’s Special Committee on Lawyers of Color to Establish Diversity, Inclusion Programs

More
Client Alert

Public Access to Electronic Court Records in Missouri

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast Hosts Ronald A. Norwood to Discuss Mentorship, Diversity & Inclusion in the Legal Industry, and the Importance of Equity for All

More
Client Alert

Virginia Passes Sweeping Data Privacy Legislation Similar to CCPA and GDPR

More
News

Jerina D. Phillips Offers COVID-19 Vaccination Advice for Employers in St. Louis Magazine Article

More
Client Alert

Model COBRA Notices Under the American Rescue Plan Act

More
News

Jeremy P. Brummond’s Article on Waivers of Consequential Damages is Published in Construction Executive

More
News

Kansas City Office of Lewis Rice Names New Member

More
News

Meghan S. Largent and Lindsay S. C. Brinton Negotiate $700,000 Award to Cobb County, Georgia Landowners in Rails-to-Trails Case

More