Factual question re: Title VII protections for sexual orientation

[Roderick_Femm]

This story has been hitting my FB feed since yesterday:

[QUOTE=WaPo]
Trump administration, intervening in major LGBT case, says job bias law does not cover sexual orientation
[/QUOTE]

I believe Bricker, among others, has reminded us from time to time that Title VII protections do not extend (yet) to sexual orientation. This is the reason, for example, that the same-sex marriage decision had to be based on grounds other than Title VII protection.

My questions are: have there been any federal court decisions that are contrary to this view, that “sex” in Title VII does include sexual orientation? What is the current legal status of this issue vis-à-vis the federal courts?

I see that there have been some decisions that seem to support sexual orientation protections, but many of them seem peripheral and not specific to the point of e.g. job protection. I also see that the EEOC enforces many job protections but that appears to be just changeable policy, something 45 hasn’t noticed yet.

[Chronos]

Your first paragraph answers your second. If there had been federal court decisions that Title VII includes orientation, then Title VII protections would extend to orientation.

[Bricker]

@Roderick_Femm

This story has been hitting my FB feed since yesterday:

I believe Bricker, among others, has reminded us from time to time that Title VII protections do not extend (yet) to sexual orientation. This is the reason, for example, that the same-sex marriage decision had to be based on grounds other than Title VII protection.

My questions are: have there been any federal court decisions that are contrary to this view, that “sex” in Title VII does include sexual orientation? What is the current legal status of this issue vis-à-vis the federal courts?

There is a circuit split on the issue.

The Seventh Circuit held in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College that Title VII extends to sexual orientation:

In this case, we have been asked to take a fresh look at our position in light of developments at the Supreme Court extending over two decades. We have done so, and we conclude today that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment dismissing Kimberly Hively’s suit against Ivy Tech Community College and remand for further proceedings.

This decision reversed the panel decision of the same court that found to the contrary,

Other circuits have found to the contrary. The Eleventh Circuit held in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital:

Evans and the EEOC also argue that the Supreme Court decisions in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998), support a cause of action for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. Again, we disagree.

[Roderick_Femm]

Thanks, Bricker, that’s what I wanted to know.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Chronos

Your first paragraph answers your second. If there had been federal court decisions that Title VII includes orientation, then Title VII protections would extend to orientation.

This answer has no place in General Questions, I think. You’re usually better than this. As the VERY NEXT ANSWER SHOWS, there are such decisions, and that doesn’t mean it’s all done and dusted. :dubious:

[Chronos]

Then the OP’s statement was incorrect. He said that Title VII does not yet extend to sexual orientation, when in fact it does (in at least some jurisdictions within the US).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That doesn’t mean that your post was actually helpful.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Chronos

Then the OP’s statement was incorrect. He said that Title VII does not yet extend to sexual orientation, when in fact it does (in at least some jurisdictions within the US).

And thus, your better answer would have been to find the cases cited by Bricker and cite them yourself, then point out that the OP’s statement is potentially inaccurate in the sense that, what he takes Bricker to have said is not actually true.

What you actually posted was of little or no value, and was also wrong.