Corporate Services, Inc.
208 Kishwaukee St. · Rockford, IL 61104
(p) (815) 962-8367 · (f) (815) 962-0940
www.corpserv.com

Contradictory Rulings on Rights Under Title VII: High Court Showdown Imminent?

Posted:

A federal appeals court in Chicago just ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII) prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The ruling only serves to muddy the waters further for employers. This is because there are some contradictory rulings on whether or not Title VII actually protects individuals from sexual orientation discrimination.

First some background on the recent Chicago ruling in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (case).

'Discriminated against based on my sexual orientation'

In 2014, the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal brought forward a lawsuit against Ivy Tech Community College on behalf of a part-time math teacher, Kimberly Hively. The suit claims Hively was denied a full-time position because she was a lesbian, which they claim violates Title VII. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin.

Initially, a trial court ruled that Title VII does not protect employees from anti-gay discrimination. A three-judge panel appeal also failed to side with Hively. But when she requested and was granted a rehearing in a federal appeals court before a panel of eleven judges, Hively finally received a favorable ruling. In an 8-3 decision, the Seventh Circuit of Appeals said: "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination."

Writing for the court, chief judge Diane Wood stated:

Any discomfort, disapproval or job decision based on the fact that the complainant — woman or man — dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates or marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex. [...] Hively's claim is no different from the claims brought by women who were rejected for jobs in traditionally male workplaces, such as fire departments, construction and policing. The employers in those cases were policing the boundaries of what jobs or behaviors they found acceptable for a woman (or in some cases, for a man).

Other rulings

Circuit courts across the U.S. have landed on either side of this issue. Some feel sexual orientation discrimination is essentially the same as sex discrimination because it is based on "sex stereotypes" — i.e., preconceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think.

Other courts feel sexual orientation is not protected by Title VII because it is not specifically spelled out as a protected characteristic in the law, plain and simple.

On a state level, 22 states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So where does all this leave employers? Based on the disparate rulings we are seeing, the sexual orientation question will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.

Posted In: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII); U.S. Supreme Court

Want to know more? Read the full article by Jared Bilski at HR Morning

More News from Corporate Services, Inc.

Paying PTO Forward

A new survey finds more than one-quarter of companies saying they allow employees to donate paid time off (PTO) to their colleagues. Experts see plenty of positives in leave donation programs, but urge human resources professionals to consider a variety of factors in implementing such policies.more