The 7th Circuit rules that anti
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7thCircuit issued a landmark decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The 8–3 ruling is an extraordinary victory for LGBTQ advocates—an emphatic declaration from a bipartisan group of judges that anti-gay workplace discrimination is clearly illegal under federal law. It also creates a sharp circuit split, increasing the odds of Supreme Court review. If that review comes and at least five justices agree with the 7thCircuit, their decision will effectively outlaw anti-gay employment discrimination in all 50 states.
The facts in Hively are straightforward. Kimberly Hively is an openly gay professor who believes that her former employer, Ivy Tech Community College, discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation. Hively sued Ivy Tech under Title VII, which prohibits workplace discrimination “because of sex.” A district court ruled against Hively in 2015, concluding that Title VII does not bar sexual orientation discrimination. A panel of judges for the 7thCircuit affirmed that ruling in 2016—but noted that it was only doing so because it was bound by two 7thCircuit precedents from 2000. In a frank opinion by Judge Ilana Rovner, a George H.W. Bush appointee, the majority signaled that it found these decisions dubious and untenable, urging the full court to reconsider them en banc. The court agreed, hearing arguments in November. And on Tuesday, it vindicated Rovner’s concerns, overruling those old precedents and holding that Title VII protects all gay employees.
As the lopsided vote in Hively indicates, the court did not find much difficulty reaching this conclusion—nor did it view the issue as a partisan one. (Five Republican appointees, including influential conservative Judge Frank Easterbrook, joined the majority.) Chief Judge Diane Wood’s opinion for the court largely tracked the reasoning laid out by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when it determined in 2015 that Title VII bars sexual orientation discrimination. (EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum told me on Tuesday that she was “gratified to see that the 7thCircuit has adopted the simple logic that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination and I hope its reasoning can serve as a model for other courts.”)
AdvertisementWood provided three interrelated reasons why Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination must encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. First, the Supreme Court held in 1989’s Price Waterhouse v. Hopkinsthat sex discrimination includes sex stereotyping—that is, mistreating an employee because she fails to conform to gender stereotypes. That logic, Wood explained, applies to gay employees. “Hively represents the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype,” Wood wrote. “She is not heterosexual.” Because she is a woman who dates other women, Hively defies the stereotypical expectation that women date members of the opposite sex. By allegedly discriminating against Hively for failing to conform to this gender role, Wood held, Ivy Tech engaged in unlawful sex stereotyping.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementSecond, Wood deployed what she calls the “comparative method” of Title VII interpretation. I call this the textualist reading of Title VII, because it is derived from the plain language of the statute itself. On its face, the law bars “discrimination because of sex.” If Hively were a mandating a woman—or if she were dating a man—she would not face discrimination. She only faced discrimination because she is a woman dating another woman. “This describes paradigmatic sex discrimination,” Wood writes. “Ivy Tech is disadvantaging her because she is a woman.” These facts lead to “the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex.”
AdvertisementThird, Wood relied upon the “associational theory”—also known as the Loving theory—of sex discrimination. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that when the government discriminates against an individual for associating with a different race, it has discriminated on the basis of race. Many courts have extended this theory to Title VII, holding that when an employer mistreats a worker for marrying a person of a different race, he has violated Title VII’s ban on race discrimination.
AdvertisementWood easily carries that logic over to the sex discrimination context. When Ivy Tech refused to promote Hively because of her orientation, Wood explained, it discriminated against her for intimately associating with people of the same sex. As Easterbrook made clear during oral arguments in Hively, this mistreatment qualifies as discrimination “because of sex,” in the same way that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law constitutes discrimination because of race. “If we were to change the sex of one partner in a lesbian relationship,” Wood wrote, “the outcome would be different. This reveals that the discrimination rests on distinctions drawn according to sex.”
Advertisement AdvertisementJudge Richard Posner, a Slate contributor and Reagan appointee, wrote separately to point out that while Title VII’s drafters did not mean to protect gay employees, their intent is immaterial. Courts, he insisted, should interpret statutes in a manner that “infuses” them “with vitality and significance today” rather than relying on their original meaning. Posner contrasted this theory with the conservative “originalism” championed by Justice Antonin Scalia. (It is worth noting, however, that Scalia himself interpreted Title VII rather liberally.) By way of example, Posner pointed out:
[I]t has taken our courts and our society a considerable while to realize that sexual harassment, which has been pervasive in many workplaces (including many Capitol Hill offices and, notoriously, Fox News, among many other institutions), is a form of sex discrimination. It has taken a little longer for realization to dawn that discrimination based on a woman’s failure to fulfill stereotypical gender roles is also a form of sex discrimination. And it has taken still longer, with a substantial volume of cases struggling and failing to maintain a plausible, defensible line between sex discrimination and sexual-orientation discrimination, to realize that homosexuality is nothing worse than failing to fulfill stereotypical gender roles.Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement
Judges Joel Flaum and Kenneth Ripple—both Reagan appointees as well—issued another concurrence further praising the textualist and associational theories of Title VII. Judges Diane Sykes, Michael Kanne, and William Bauer dissented. That lineup is no surprise: Sykes and Kanne are rigid reactionaries while the 90-year-old Bauer joked at oral arguments that lesbians exist because of “ugly men.” Lambda Legal attorney Greg Nevins, who argued for Hively at the 7thCircuit, told me on Wednesday that the dissenters didn’t concern him. “After today,” Nevins said, “courts will have to grapple with the real issues and not rest on poorly reasoned decisions from long ago. And thus we will win.”
AdvertisementTuesday’s decision is, in short, a thunderbolt. It lays out three cogent reasons why sexual orientation discrimination is always a form of sex discrimination. And it essentially dares other courts, including the Supreme Court, to find flaws in its careful, disciplined analysis. Wood’s majority opinion contributes to a growing (though not yet universal) consensus among federal courts that Title VII obviously protects gay employees—and confirms that this consensus is bipartisan. It will be impossible for other judges to ignore. And with a little luck, it will soon push a majority of the Supreme Court to recognize that anti-gay discrimination is, at root, discrimination “because of sex.”
Tweet Share Share Comment-
10 Places to Get to Know Paul BunyanBiegun in Seoul this week to discuss resumption of nuke talks with North KoreaSalma Hayek is firmly against Barbie's Frida Kahlo dollCryptocurrency startup wants to 'pay' you to watch porn, but there's a catch24 of the Oldest Trees in the World2017成都茶博会 我们到底收获了啥?广东绿色食品生产资料精彩亮相行业展会S. Korea considers joining Quad Plus to steer US toward talks with N. Korea: policy adviserPakistan to host South Africa before ICC Women’s T20 World CupElon Musk tells employees smoking weed with Joe Rogan was 'not wise'
- ·South Korean lawmakers brace for US election as Harris, Trump diverge on North Korea
- ·Argentina no longer hosting Copa America: CONMEBOL
- ·Inside Quinn, a new site for audio erotica
- ·3 Jeopardy contestants somehow didn't recognize Tom Hanks
- ·9 Festive Holiday Treats and Where to Find Them
- ·'China, Russia loosening noose on North Korea again'
- ·Trump's dead father mistake may be his most awkward moment this week
- ·Inside Quinn, a new site for audio erotica
- ·抖音超600万次传播量!广东省农事运动会乡村直播大赛火出圈
- ·The Kansas City Chiefs dazzle audiences with their latest postseason tragedy.
- ·Biegun in Seoul this week to discuss resumption of nuke talks with North Korea
- ·Dennis Rodman, who hangs with Trump and Kim, says Korea peace deal 'could still work'
- ·14 Heists, Robberies, and Other Great Capers
- ·Jon Gruden grittily grinds his way back to the gridiron.
- ·Google Doodle re
- ·Trump: Meetings are good thing after North Korea offers nuke talks
- ·When will Trump and Harris debate? The presidential campaigns snipe over ABC News’ rules.
- ·Facebook has banned far
- ·Guardiola's 'tinkering' raises questions once again
- ·导演曹晓宁:推动文化润疆,要有能留下、能流通、能流传的精品力作
- ·Number of COVID
- ·FDA head Gottlieb announces plans to regulate nicotine in cigarettes
- ·North Korea says it has no intention to talk with South Korea
- ·Biegun in Seoul this week to discuss resumption of nuke talks with North Korea
- ·24 Museums Dedicated to Black History
- ·All it takes is a styrofoam head to make a scarily accurate meme
- ·广州市白云区供销联社携手6所院校15支队伍,加力提速推进“百千万工程”
- ·同场竞技 “决战”大渡河畔
- ·2017成都茶博会 我们到底收获了啥?
- ·心无旁骛治病救人 同心协力默默奉献
- ·Against All Odds: How Netflix Made It
- ·Salma Hayek is firmly against Barbie's Frida Kahlo doll
- ·Jon Gruden grittily grinds his way back to the gridiron.
- ·Players, fans will both suffer from too much football: Lewa
- ·Pakistan Cricket at crossroads after shock defeat at Pindi
- ·同场竞技 “决战”大渡河畔