In Gay Rights 'Gamechanger,' Appeals Court Bars Employment Bias Based on Sexual Orientation
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act, in what was hailed as a landmark decision by gay rights advocates who have fought for years to expand workplace protections.
April 05, 2017 at 09:48 AM
6 minute read
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act, in what was hailed as a landmark decision by gay rights advocates who have fought for years to expand workplace protections.
The opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, overturns an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the court just a year before. That decision upheld the dismissal of a discrimination lawsuit by an openly lesbian woman who had sued after she was denied faculty positions at the community college where she taught.
Other federal appeals courts have similarly ruled that the Civil Rights Act does not include protections for gay or bisexual employees. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision along those lines, although that case may also be reviewed en banc.
In its divisive 8-3 ruling Tuesday, the Seventh Circuit majority took a different view of how to interpret the term “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits the denial of employment opportunities on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
Related Articles:
|Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Diane Wood rejected the contention by defendant Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana that the term should be interpreted narrowly because previous legislative proposals to amend Title VII to add the words “sexual orientation” have not gained traction in Congress.
Judge Diane Wood. (Photo: Roberto Westbrook)“Many of our sister circuits have also noted this fact,” Wood wrote. “In our view, however, it is simply too difficult to draw a reliable inference from these truncated legislative initiatives to rest our opinion on them. The goalposts have been moving over the years, as the Supreme Court has shed more light on the scope of the language that already is in the statute: no sex discrimination.”
Former Ivy Tech adjunct professor Kimberly Hively, represented by the Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, advanced twin arguments before the court: first, that all else being equal, she would have been treated differently if she was a man in a relationship with a woman; and that her rights to associate intimately with a person of the same sex are protected under Supreme Court precedents beginning with Loving v. Virginia.
The en banc panel found that both avenues ended up with an interpretation of the language in the Civil Rights Act that bars sexual orientation-based discrimination.
“The logic of the Supreme Court's decisions, as well as the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex, persuade us that the time has come to overrule our previous cases that have endeavored to find and observe that line,” Wood wrote.
The broader interpretation of the statute drew a sharp-tongued rebuke by three of the circuit's judges. Judge Diane Sykes, who was one of the jurists on President Donald Trump's shortlist for the Supreme Court vacancy, lambasted the “momentous” decision as an example of judges going far outside the bounds of the law to get to a desired result.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
End of an (Chevron) Era: DC Circuit Tackles Challenge to Fishing Monitor Rule, Again
Trending Stories
- 1While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 2The Definition of Special Employment
- 3People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 4Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
- 5Divided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250