7th Circuit: Title VII includes sexual orientation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals made history when it ruled in early April that Title VII does prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. But whether that opinion becomes the inspiration for other circuits to make similar findings has yet to be seen.

In Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 15-1720, an eight-judge majority from the Chicago court detailed their reasoning for connecting bias against gays and lesbians to the prohibition of discrimination based on sex in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was a monumental ruling in that it was the first time a circuit court of appeals had found Title VII extended to sexual orientation.

orientation-hively-15col.jpg Kimberly Hively, pictured with her attorney Gregory Nevins, filed the Title VII complaint that eventually led the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn its precedent. (IL file photo)

What happens next could come very soon.

Already the 2nd and 11th circuits appear to be waivering on their own precedents over sexual orientation. Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has a full bench of nine justices, the split among the federal appellate could provide a compelling reason to step in.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Steve Sanders believes the 7th Circuit’s ruling will be very influential. As he explained, the opinion was a well-crafted piece of statutory interpretation and legal analysis that was supported by a majority of judges who have differing ideologies and judicial philosophies.

sanders-steve.jpg Sanders

To get to its finding about Title VII, the appellate court had to overturn its own precedent. Another federal circuit hearing similar discrimination cases may have an easier time setting new precedent because it will not be the first court to do so.

“This decision provides the momentum for the law to keep moving in that direction,” Sanders said.

The 7th Circuit’s landmark ruling was foreshadowed by the July 2016 holding from the three-judge panel in the Hively case. Judge Ilana Rovner’s 30-plus page opinion, while affirming Title VII did not extend to sexual orientation discrimination, asserted the court needed to reconsider its prior rulings on this subject.

Following a rehearing by the full circuit, Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote for the majority that the line between discrimination based on gender stereotyping and based on sexual orientation does not exist. Kimberly Hively’s claim that she was denied promotions and eventually terminated from employment at Ivy Tech because she is a lesbian was no different than gender non-conformity claims brought by women who were rejected from jobs traditionally held by men.

The Supreme Court drew the connection between discrimination based on gender stereotyping and Title VII prohibitions in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

“The (Hively) decision means that (gays and lesbians) will no longer have to be concerned about who they are and who they love for their continued employment,” said Hively’s attorney Gregory Nevins of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. “I think it means people will be judged on their merits.”

In the workplace

Even with codes of conduct in place, discrimination can still occur. Sanders noted Ivy Tech has a non-discrimination policy that expressly forbids discrimination or harassment because of sexual orientation or gender identity and yet it was the defendant in the Hively case.

After the ruling, Ivy Tech released a statement denying it discriminated against Hively based on her sex or sexual orientation. The school does not plan on appealing.

fulgoni-britton-rozlyn-mug Fulgoni-Britton

Rozlyn Fulgoni-Britton, associate at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in Indianapolis, advised employers, even those outside of the 7th Circuit’s jurisdiction, to update to their employment manuals. Discrimination can eat into profits by lowering morale and reducing productivity, but it can also lead to litigation, especially since the door for Title VII sexual orientation complaints has been opened.

“People are going to keep bringing sexual orientation cases in different courts,” Fulgoni-Britton said. “I don’t know of any employer who wants to be the test case.”

Employment discrimination cases are not easy to prove. Lori Eckert, a Chicago-based employment attorney, said workers who are subjected to inappropriate comments or harassed on the job often take no action because they need the paycheck. If they do sue, companies will typically file for a motion for summary judgment and, only if that is denied, will they be likelier to settle the complaint.

“I think it sets a good example,” Eckert said of the Hively ruling. “I think the decision is well-written and I’m hoping it gives courage to other judges.”

Other circuits

The first indication of how other circuits will react to the 7th Circuit’s opinion could come from the 11th Circuit.

About a month before the Hively decision, a three-judge panel in that Atlanta-based court affirmed the dismissal of a lesbian worker’s Title VII discrimination claims against her former employer. Jameka Evans argued she was physically battered and denied equal pay because she did not behave in a traditional womanly manner.

In Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, Charles Moss, et al., 15-15234, the majority stuck with its precedent from 1979 and found Title VII does not include protections for sexual orientation. But the panel was unsettled. The concurring opinion argued that discrimination against a gay individual is not automatically bias based on gender stereotyping while the dissent found a direct link between sexual orientation and gender non-conformity discrimination.

The ruling surprised Nevins, who represented Evans. “This is an even more compelling case than the 7th Circuit,” he said. “The 11th Circuit precedent is so feeble and so old it really needs to be re-examined.”

Lambda Legal has filed for a rehearing of this case en banc and, according to Nevins, is prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court if the request is denied.

Also in the 2nd Circuit, Chief Judge Robert Katzmann in March wrote a concurring opinion in the Title VII case, Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc., 16-748, and specifically called for the court to reconsider its precedent that the Civil Rights Act does not cover sexual orientation.

The dissent in Hively, written by Judge Diane Sykes and joined by Judges William Bauer and Michael Kanne, faults the majority for judicial overreach. While it maintained that Hively was treated unjustly if she was denied a job because of her sexual orientation, the judges held Title VII should be interpreted as a “reasonable person” would have understood it in 1964. The bench should not read the statute through the lens of changed social attitudes.

Hively’s case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Hively, a math teacher who initially filed her complaint pro se, will now be able to pursue her Title VII claim against Ivy Tech.

“She had courage enough to keep going forward,” Nevins said. “She changed the world.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: Here are the two research papers: 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.