Standard of Review for 12 B6 Title Vii 7th Circuit

Sexual Orientation Bigotry Prohibited by Title 7, Federal Appeals Court Finds

Observing that it would crave "considerable calisthenics" to remove "sex" from "sexual orientation," the U.South. Courtroom of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, has ruled that "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination" and unlawful nether Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Seventh Circuit'south ruling was issued by anen bancpanel of all active judges of the Court. Eight judges agreed with the result and 3 judges dissented. This is the first Court of Appeals to hold that sexual orientation bigotry is prohibited under Title VII. The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

The instance came before the full panel of the Seventh Excursion after the district court, following Seventh Circuit precedent, dismissed the complaint of a part-time higher professor who claimed violations of Title VII. The plaintiff, who is a lesbian, alleged that she had been denied full-fourth dimension positions and terminated due to her sexual orientation.

An earlier console of three Seventh Excursion judges had upheld dismissal of her complaint, and the Seventh Circuit then agreed to rehear the caseen banc.Because of the procedural posture, the Courtroom was required to accept the facts equally presented by the plaintiff and nothing from the Courtroom's ruling prevents the employer from contesting the points in later proceedings.

Chief Judge Diane Wood authored the Court's principal opinion, finding 2 approaches supported the plaintiff's ability to state a claim nether Title 7.

Showtime, Approximate Wood constitute the plaintiff's claim was supported by a comparable method; that is, the plaintiff was able to describe a state of affairs in which her sexual activity led to her being treated differently. Had the plaintiff been a man married to or living with a woman, and everything else stayed the same, she would have been promoted and not fired. According to Judge Wood, "This describes paradigmatic sex discrimination."

Second, Approximate Wood found the plaintiff's claims supported by an associational discrimination theory. Fifty years ago, the U.South. Supreme Court struck down state laws restricting interracial wedlock as violating the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.Loving 5. Virginia, 388 U.South. 1 (1967). Just asLovingfound anti-miscegenation laws to be inherently racist because those laws rested on "distinctions fatigued according to race," the alleged agin employment decisions confronting the plaintiff, a lesbian, rested on distinctions drawn according to sex, stating a merits nether Title Vii.

Approximate Wood rejected common arguments of those who debate sexual orientation discrimination is non encompassed by Title VII. For example, regarding the legislative intent of Championship VII to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, Judge Wood noted that the Supreme Courtroom has ruled in other contexts that Title Seven protects confronting alleged bigotry that goes beyond the principal evils envisioned by the Congress that enacted Title Seven. Regarding the rejection of amendments to Title Seven that would have made sexual orientation a specific protected category, Judge Forest found that "truncated legislative initiatives" do not let a reliable inference against coverage. She added that while the Seventh Circuit would non address whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 2015 declaration of Title Seven coverage for sexual orientation was entitled to deference, she plant it was notable that Congress has non bothered to expressly reject the EEOC'south position.

Employers should ensure their Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment policies and preparation cover sexual orientation discrimination. Sexual orientation discrimination can be straight or subtle. Employers should be mindful of all the different types of bigotry within the workplace.

Employers should regularly review their policies and practices with employment counsel to ensure they accost specific organizational needs effectively and comply with applicable law.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022 National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 96

• Printer-friendly
• Email this Article
• Download PDF
• REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

---

Paul Patten is a Principal in the Chicago, Illinois, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He represents management in employment cases in federal and state courts and before authoritative agencies.

Mr. Patten'due south practice focuses primarily on employment litigation and counseling. He represents employers in federal and country individual and class-based lawsuits covering a wide range of statutes and subjects, including federal and state anti-discrimination and wage and hour laws.

Michelle E. Phillips is a Chief in the White Plains, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She handles diverse types of employment litigation, with an emphasis on sexual harassment matters.

Ms. Phillips likewise counsels clients on a variety of labor and employment matters concerning federal and state employment laws. She frequently conducts and advises clients on internal investigations and leads employment discrimination and sexual harassment seminars and in-house diversity preparation programs for clients.

drewhichat.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/sexual-orientation-discrimination-prohibited-title-vii-federal-appeals-court-finds

Share this post