CLOSE In a ground-breaking ruling, a federal appeals court ruled that a 1964 law barring sex discrimination extends to sexual orientation, marking a major workplace victory for gays and lesbians. USA TODAY

The appeals court ruling on workplace discrimination comes less than two years after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. (Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP)



A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that a 1964 law barring sex discrimination extends to sexual orientation, marking a major workplace victory for gays and lesbians.

The 8-3 decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which overturned a three-judge panel's ruling, represents another step in the effort by gay rights groups to extend their 2015 nationwide victory on same-sex marriage to other areas, including employment.

"It is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex," Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote for the majority. "It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the 'sex' from 'sexual orientation.'"

While the 7th Circuit has jurisdiction only over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, the court's ruling is sure to be hailed by gay rights groups as an important step in the national effort to protect the LGBT community from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

At the same time, they have been met with a wave of state laws designed to protect the religious freedom of employers and others. The clash extends to education and housing as well— and it may not be long before a case is headed back to the Supreme Court.

The ruling on behalf of Kimberly Hively, an instructor at Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Ind., fired because she is lesbian, makes the 7th Circuit the highest federal court to protect LGBT people under the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition against sex discrimination. Title VII of that law also bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and religion.

Greg Nevins of Lambda Legal, which brought the case, said it is a "game-changer for lesbian and gay employees facing discrimination in the workplace and sends a clear message to employers: It is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Judge Richard Posner, one of eight 7th Circuit judges appointed by Republican presidents, issued a lengthy concurrence. "I don’t see why firing a lesbian because she is in the subset of women who are lesbian should be thought any less a form of sex discrimination than firing a woman because she’s a woman," he said.

The decision illustrated the rift between judges who adhere to the Constitution and laws as written and understood at the time, and those who take into consideration judicial precedents and societal changes in the aftermath -- a debate playing out this week in the Senate over the Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Judge Diane Sykes, who was a finalist on President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, wrote the dissent. She accused the court of "an aggressive reading of loosely related Supreme Court precedents" in order to circumvent the legislative process.

"If Kimberly Hively was denied a job because of her sexual orientation, she was treated unjustly," Sykes said. "But Title VII does not provide a remedy for this kind of discrimination. The argument that it should must be addressed to Congress."

But Wood, who was considered for a Supreme Court nomination under President Barack Obama, said the ruling properly reflects "what the correct rule of law is now in light of the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretations, not what someone thought it meant one, ten, or twenty years ago."

“Love won again today,” Lambda Legal CEO Rachel Tiven said. “Kim Hively loved her job teaching math at Ivy Tech Community College, but she was fired because she is a lesbian. Today, the 7th Circuit said clearly: that’s wrong."

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2oAuU6m</s>On Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled that LGBT employees are protected from workplace discrimination under the Civil Rights Act for the first time since its creation in 1964.



The case comes from a lawsuit filed by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively that alleged Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana, didn’t hire her full time because she was a lesbian, ABC News reports. The decision to rule in Hively’s favor was a surprising one; the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is fairly conservative. Still, with eight of the 11 judges agreeing that discrimination in the workplace due to someone’s sexual orientation is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, this case could potentially set a precedent for the definitions of the act to be expanded.

At the center of the debate was the meaning of the word “sex” in the Civil Rights and whether or not the original intent of Congress in 1964 was for it to refer to whether or not an employee was male or female as opposed to their sexual orientation.

CNN reports that Judge Diane Wood was exceedingly clear in her decision:

“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. That means that it falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination, if it affects employment in one of the specified ways.”

Gregory Nevin of Lambda Legal, the lawyer representing Hively, said “This decision is (a) game-changer for lesbian and gay employees facing discrimination in the workplace and sends a clear message to employers: it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.”</s>CHICAGO (AP) — A federal appeals court in Chicago has ruled the 1964 Civil Rights Act does protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination.

The ruling Tuesday by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the first time a federal appellate court has come to that conclusion.

The decision comes after the 7th Circuit rejected a July finding by three of its own judges that the law doesn't cover sexual-orientation bias and ordered a rare rehearing by the full court.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively alleging that the Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend didn't hire her full-time because she is a lesbian.

The entire court reheard oral arguments in November and directed the toughest questions at a lawyer who argued only Congress could extend protections.</s>CHICAGO — A federal appeals court ruled for the first time Tuesday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, setting up a likely battle before the Supreme Court as gay rights advocates push to broaden the scope of the 53-year-old law.

The decision by the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes just three weeks after a three-judge panel in Atlanta ruled the opposite, saying employers aren’t prohibited from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.

It also comes as President Donald Trump’s administration has begun setting its own policies on LGBT rights. Late in January, the White House declared Trump would enforce an Obama administration order barring companies that do federal work from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. But in February, it revoked guidance on transgender students’ use of public school bathrooms, deferring to states.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively alleging that the Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend didn’t hire her full time because she is a lesbian.

Hively said she agreed to bring the case because she felt she was being “bullied.”

She told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that the time has come “to stop punishing people for being gay, being lesbian, being transgender.”

The Chicago ruling followed a so-called en banc hearing of all the judges in the appeals court, with eight agreeing that the civil rights law prohibits discrimination because of sexual orientation, and three dissenting. The vote is notable because the 7th Circuit is considered a relatively conservative appeals court. Eight out of the 11 judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

“This decision is game changer for lesbian and gay employees facing discrimination in the workplace and sends a clear message to employers: it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” said Greg Nevins, Employment Fairness Program Director for Lambda Legal, which brought the case on behalf of Hively.

The issue could still land before the Supreme Court at some point. A GOP-majority House and Senate make it unlikely the Congress will amend the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and requires equal access to public places and employment.

The debate in the Hively case revolved around the meaning of the word ‘sex’ in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Some courts have concluded that Congress meant for the word to refer only to whether a worker was male or female. They said that it would be wrong to stretch the meaning of ‘sex’ in the statute to also include sexual orientation.

The lawyer representing the teacher, Gregory Nevins of the Lambda Legal advocacy group of LGBT rights, pointed to what he described as the absurdity of a 1980s Supreme Court finding that if workers are discriminated against because they don’t behave around the office by norms of how men or women should behave, then that does violate the Civil Rights Law. But if a man or woman is discriminated against at work for being gay that was found not to violate the Civil Rights Act.

“You can’t discriminate against a woman because she rides a Harley, had Bears tickets or has tattoos,” he said. “But you can if she’s lesbian.”</s>"We conclude today that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination," Judge Diane Wood wrote for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling is a victory for Kimberly Hively, who sued Ivy Tech Community College arguing that the school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it denied her employment.

"This decision is (a) gamechanger for lesbian and gay employees facing discrimination in the workplace and sends a clear message to employers: it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation," said Greg Nevins, of Lambda Legal the group that brought the case.</s>The Latest on a federal appeals court in Chicago ruling the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination : An Indiana teacher who's the plaintiff in the case in which a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination says she filed her lawsuit because she felt she was being "bullied." The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in a case brought by Kimberly Hively of South Bend.

Start the conversation, or Read more at The Daily News-Record.</s>CHICAGO (AP) -- A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act also protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, the first time a federal appellate court has come to that conclusion.

The decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after it threw out a July finding by three of its own judges that the law doesn't cover sexual-orientation bias and ordered a rare rehearing by the full court, a rare session known as an en banc hearing.

It also comes as President Donald Trump's administration has begun setting its own policies on LGBT rights. Late in January, the White House declared Trump would enforce an Obama administration order barring companies that do federal work from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. But in February, it revoked guidance on transgender students' use of public school bathrooms, deferring to states.

The Hively case stems from a lawsuit by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively alleging that the Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend didn't hire her full time because she is a lesbian.

The entire court reheard oral arguments in November and directed the toughest questions at a lawyer for the college who argued only Congress could extend the protections. The aggressive questions suggested the court might be willing to expand the 53-year-old landmark law.

Judge Richard Posner asked the attorney for the community college, John Maley: "Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?" When Maley said he couldn't think of anyone who would be harmed, Posner shot back, "So, what's the big deal?" Posner also said it was wrong to say a decades-old statute is "frozen" on the day it passed and that courts can never broaden its scope.

Eight out of the 11 judges who reheard the case, including Posner, were appointed by Republican presidents.

The ruling comes as hopes have dimmed among some gay rights activists that the question will be resolved in their favor following election victories in November by Republicans.

The issue could still land before the Supreme Court at some point. A GOP-majority House and Senate make it unlikely the Congress will amend the statute.

The focus of discussion at the November session in Chicago was the meaning of the word 'sex' in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the provision that bans workplace bias based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Multiple court rulings back Maley's contention that Congress meant for the word to refer only to whether a worker was male or female. Given that, he said it would be wrong to stretch the meaning of 'sex' in the statute to also include sexual orientation. He conceded the law is imprecise, but added: "That makes it an issue for Congress."

The lawyer representing the teacher, Gregory Nevins of the Lambda Legal advocacy group of LGBT rights, pointed to what he described as the absurdity of a 1980s Supreme Court finding that if workers are discriminated against because they don't behave around the office by norms of how men or women should behave, then that does violate the Civil Rights Law. But if a man or woman is discriminated against at work for being gay that was found not to violate the Civil Rights Act.

"You can't discriminate against a woman because she rides a Harley, had Bears tickets or has tattoos," he said. "But you can if she's lesbian."</s>For the first time ever, a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday ruled that federal civil rights law protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees from discrimination in the workplace. The ruling from a divided 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago represents a major legal victory for the gay rights movement. It also allows a lawsuit to go forward in Indiana, where plaintiff Kimberly Hively said she lost her community college teaching job because she is lesbian.

“I have been saying all this time that what happened to me wasn’t right and was illegal,” Hively said in a statement released by the gay rights legal organization Lambda Legal, which represents her.

In its decision to reinstate Hively’s 2014 lawsuit, which was thrown out at the local level in Indiana, the Court of Appeals ruled that protections against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from job discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

In so doing, the full appeals court overruled a decision by a smaller panel of its judges to uphold the district court’s decision in the college’s favour.

In its 8-3 decision, the court bucked decades of rulings that gay people are not protected by the milestone civil rights law, because they are not specifically mentioned in it.

“For many years, the courts of appeals of this country understood the prohibition against sex discrimination to exclude discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote for the majority. “We conclude today that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.”

To reach its conclusion, the court examined 20 years of rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on issues related to gay rights, including the high court’s 2015 ruling that same-sex couples have a right to marry, Wood wrote.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the question of whether the Civil Rights Act protects gays and lesbians, she wrote.

In their dissent, three of the judges said that the majority had inappropriately used its own power to change the civil rights law, which does not explicitly protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, and which for decades has been interpreted as excluding that protection.

“Today the court jettisons the prevailing interpretation and installs the polar opposite,” Judge Diane Sykes wrote in dissent.

In her lawsuit, Hively said that Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend passed her over for a permanent position and refused to renew her contract as an adjunct professor after school administrators learned she is a lesbian.

The school has denied the claims. Spokesman Jeff Fanter said in an email to Reuters that officials were reviewing the ruling and would comment on Wednesday.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App now</s>LGBT employees are protected from workplace discrimination by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a federal appeals court ruled for the first time Tuesday.

The historic ruling sets up a likely battle before the Supreme Court as gay rights advocates push to broaden the scope of the 53-year-old law.

The 8-to-3 decision by the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes just three weeks after a three-judge panel in Atlanta ruled the opposite.

The Atlanta court said employers are not prohibited from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.

The 7th Circuit is considered relatively conservative and five of the eight judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, making the finding all the more notable.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively alleging that the Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana did not hire her full time because she is a lesbian.

In an opinion concurring with the majority, Judge Richard Posner wrote that changing norms call for a change in interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin or sex.

'I don't see why firing a lesbian because she is in the subset of women who are lesbian should be thought any less a form of sex discrimination than firing a woman because she's a woman,' wrote the judge, who was appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan.

The decision comes as President Donald Trump's administration has begun setting its own policies on LGBT rights.

Late in January, the White House declared Trump would enforce an Obama administration order barring companies that do federal work from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual identity.

But in February, it revoked guidance on transgender students' use of public school bathrooms, deferring to states.

Hively said after Tuesday's ruling that she agreed to bring the case because she felt she was being 'bullied.'

She said that the time has come 'to stop punishing people for being gay, being lesbian, being transgender.'

'This decision is a game changer for lesbian and gay employees facing discrimination in the workplace and sends a clear message to employers: it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,' said Greg Nevins of Lambda Legal, which brought the case on behalf of Hively.

Ivy Tech said in a statement that its policies specifically bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and that it denies discriminating against Hively.

That aspect of the case is a factual question separate from the 7th Circuit's finding regarding the law.

The Chicago ruling came on the anniversary of the assassination of civil rights icon Martin Luther King, whose marches against racism prompted Congress to pass the landmark civil law.

A GOP-majority House and Senate make it unlikely the current Congress will amend the Civil Rights Act, likely leaving it for the Supreme Court to decide.

Debate in the Hively case revolved around the meaning of the word 'sex' in Title VII, the section of the law that deals with discrimination.

Other courts have concluded that Congress meant for the word to refer only to whether a worker was male or female.

They said that it would be wrong to stretch the meaning of 'sex' in the statute to include sexual orientation.

The majority of the 7th Circuit sided with a broader meaning.

'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.

'That means that it falls within Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination ...,' Judge Diane Wood, a President Bill Clinton appointee, wrote for the majority.

The dissenting opinion — written by Judge Diane Sykes, a conservative who was on Trump's list of possible Supreme Court appointees — said the majority were stretching the meaning of the law's text too far.

'We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions,' she wrote.

The dissent alludes to the judicial philosophy of Trump's high-court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, who advocates adhering largely to original legislative texts in deciding legal disputes.

'It's understandable that the court is impatient to protect lesbians and gay men from workplace discrimination without waiting for Congress to act.

'Legislative change is arduous and can be slow to come. But we're not authorized to amend Title VII by interpretation,' Sykes wrote.

Posner, though, said sticking to outdated meanings and cultural standards didn't make sense.

'It is well-nigh certain that homosexuality, male or female, did not figure in the minds of the legislators who enacted Title VII,' he wrote in his concurring opinion.

'(Lawmakers in the 1960s) shouldn't be blamed for that failure of foresight,' he wrote.

"We understand the words of Title VII differently not because we're smarter than the statute's framers and ratifiers but because we live in a different era, a different culture.'</s>A federal appeals court ruled for the first time Tuesday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, setting up a likely battle before the Supreme Court as gay rights advocates push to broaden the scope of the 53-year-old law.
The full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago rules (8-3) that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination.