Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College

Last updated

Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Full case name Kimberly Hively, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ivy Tech Community College, Defendant-Appellee
ArguedNovember 30 2016
DecidedApril 4 2017
Citation853 F.3d 339
Case history
Prior historyMotion to dismiss granted, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25813, 2015 WL 926015 (N.D. Ind. 2015), affirmed, 830 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2015), rehearing en banc granted, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20302 (7th Cir. 2016)
Holding
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Court membership
Judges sitting Wood, Chief Judge, and Bauer, Posner, Flaum, Easterbrook, Ripple, Kanne, Rovner, Williams, Sykes, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges
Case opinions
Majority Wood, joined by Posner, Flaum (Parts I & II only), Easterbrook, Ripple (Parts I & II only), Rovner, Williams, and Hamilton
ConcurrencePosner
ConcurrenceFlaum, joined by Ripple
DissentSykes, joined by Bauer, Kanne
Laws applied
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling made the Seventh Circuit the first federal appeals court to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Contents

Educator Kimberly Hively sued Ivy Tech Community College for employment discrimination in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, alleging that Ivy Tech had unlawfully discriminated on the basis of her sexual orientation. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, but the Seventh Circuit judges voted to rehear the case en banc , before all 11 judges of the Court of Appeals.

Writing for the 8–3 majority, Chief Judge Diane Wood held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Wood wrote that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex, because if an employer discriminates on the basis of sex, a man in a relationship with a woman would not be discriminated against, but a woman in a relationship with a woman would be. Additionally, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia , Wood wrote that discrimination on the basis of a person's partner's sex is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sex.

After the Seventh Circuit's ruling, the Supreme Court in 2020 came to the same conclusion in Bostock v. Clayton County , holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Background


District Court

Kimberly Hively, an openly lesbian educator, taught at Ivy Tech Community College as a part-time adjunct professor starting in 2000. In 2009, Hively asserted she was reprimanded for a kiss goodbye with her girlfriend in the parking lot of the school. After receiving a graduate degree in 2011, Hively applied for multiple full-time positions at Ivy Tech. Despite other educators who were hired after Hively having been given full-time positions, Hively was not. Further, her part-time contract was not renewed in 2014. [1]

Facing difficulty finding lawyers to take her case in Indiana, she filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Ivy Tech without a lawyer ( pro se ) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [1] The District Court dismissed the case in March 2015 on the basis that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not violate Title VII. [2] [3]

Seventh Circuit panel

After securing legal representation by Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights legal group, Hively appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [1] A panel of three 7th Circuit judges affirmed the dismissal of the case in July 2016. In its ruling, the panel noted that it had so ruled only because it was bound by prior precedent from 2000, and urged the full Seventh Circuit to reconsider them. [2] [3] [4] [Note 1]

En banc proceedings

Following the panel ruling, Hively petitioned the Seventh Circuit to rehear the case en banc (before all 11 judges of the Court). [5] In October 2016, the full Court voted to rehear the case and vacate the older ruling. The en banc Court heard arguments in the case in November 2016. [2]

Majority opinion

Chief Judge Diane Wood delivered the opinion of the 8-3 majority. Diane Wood.jpg
Chief Judge Diane Wood delivered the opinion of the 8–3 majority.

Chief Judge Diane Wood delivered the opinion of the Court in April 2017. By an 8–3 vote, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Writing for the Court, Wood held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes sex discrimination for two reasons. [6] [4]

First, Wood analyzed Hively's claims by asking if she would have faced discrimination if she was male – that is, whether a man in a relationship with a woman would have been discriminated against, assuming that Ivy Tech discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Wood concluded that because a man in Hively's position would not have faced discrimination, any discrimination Hively faced would constitute "paradigmatic sex discrimination." [4] In addition, relying on the Supreme Court's holding that discrimination for failure to conform to gender stereotypes constitutes sex discrimination, Wood wrote that homosexuality constitutes the "ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype" [4] and is thus protected by Title VII. [7] [6] [8]

Second, Wood held that discrimination basis of an employee's intimate partner constitutes "associational discrimination." [4] In Loving v. Virginia , the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of a person's partner's race amounts to discrimination on the basis of race. Relying on the same reasoning, Wood held that discrimination on the basis of a person's partner's sex amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex. [7] [6]

Accordingly, the Court reversed the dismissal of the lawsuit and remanded the case back to the District Court for further action. The Court did not find that Ivy Tech had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation – rather, the Court determined that the case should not have been dismissed. [9]

Concurrences

Judge Flaum wrote a concurrence, which was joined by Judge Ripple. Flaum wrote that the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 justifies the majority's opinion. Flaum specifically noted that sex need only be a "motivating factor" in order for an action to constitute unlawful sex discrimination, and sex is naturally an element of an employer who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. [6] [7]

Judge Posner also wrote a concurrence, in which he agreed that sex discrimination should be prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, taking a different approach than other judges in the majority, Posner wrote that judges should modify the interpretation of statutes based on their experiences. Noting the long time between the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the case before him, Posner wrote that interpreting sexual orientation to be protected by Title VII is necessary to "satisfy modern needs and understandings." [7] [4]

Dissent

Judge Sykes wrote a dissent, in which Judges Bauer and Kanne joined. Sykes found fault with the majority's approach to statutory interpretation, writing that in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was enacted, "sex" did not include sexual orientation. Sykes wrote that Congress has specifically prohibited discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" in addition to "sex", suggesting that Congress views the terms as covering distinct meanings. Sykes wrote that bias on the basis of sexual orientation is entirely distinct from bias on the basis of sex, and argued that any attempt to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination should come from Congress, not the judiciary. [7] [6]

Aftermath

Following the Seventh Circuit's ruling, Ivy Tech released a statement saying it "respects and appreciates" the Court's ruling and would not seek Supreme Court review of the ruling. Ivy Tech denied that it had engaged in any discrimination, and indicated that it would defend Hively's claims in the District Court. [1] The parties reached a settlement in 2018. [10]

The Court's decision in Hively made the Seventh Circuit the highest federal court to find sexual orientation discrimination unlawful. The New York Times called the ruling a "significant victory for gay rights" and noted that five of the eight judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents. The ruling resulted in a circuit split, which made it more likely that the Supreme Court would grant a petition for a writ of certiorari (i.e., to agree to review a case presenting a similar issue), [3] [9] although the defendant in Hively did not file a petition for certiorari. [11]

In Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, faced with an identical issue, came to the opposite ruling, holding in 2017 that Title VII's prohibition on employment discrimination "because of ... sex" does not apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court denied a cert petition in that case. [12] [13]

In Bostock v. Clayton County , the Supreme Court in 2020 held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. [14]

Notes

  1. ↑ The cases establishing the precedent included Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 224 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir. 2000), and Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080, 1085 (7th Cir. 2000).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1964</span> Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-discrimination law</span> Legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people

Anti-discrimination law or non-discrimination law refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as protected groups or protected classes. Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation. Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, religion, creed, or individual political opinions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane S. Sykes</span> American judge (born 1957)

Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.

<i>Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America</i>

Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America, 993 F.2d 1267, was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that upheld the right of private organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion when establishing their own membership standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane Wood</span> American judge (born 1950)

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. She previously served as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination. It was a landmark case for retaliation claims. It set a precedent for claims which could be considered retaliatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination based on a person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.

The Bennett Amendment is a United States labor law provision in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §703(h) passed to limit sex discrimination claims regarding pay to the rules in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It says an employer can "differentiate upon the basis of sex" when it compensates employees "if such differentiation is authorized by" the Equal Pay Act.

Joel Martin Flaum is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Michigan</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Michigan enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Michigan in June 2024 was ranked "the most welcoming U.S. state for LGBT individuals". Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Michigan under the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage was legalised in accordance with 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity is unlawful since July 2022, was re-affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court - under and by a 1976 statewide law, that explicitly bans discrimination "on the basis of sex". The Michigan Civil Rights Commission have also ensured that members of the LGBT community are not discriminated against and are protected in the eyes of the law since 2018 and also legally upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2022. In March 2023, a bill passed the Michigan Legislature by a majority vote - to formally codify both "sexual orientation and gender identity" anti-discrimination protections embedded within Michigan legislation. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed the bill on March 16, 2023. In 2024, Michigan repealed “the last ban on commercial surrogacy within the US” - for individuals and couples and reformed the parentage laws, that acknowledges same sex couples and their families with children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

Hively is a surname. Notable persons with this name include:

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Simon, Darran (April 5, 2017). "Lesbian plaintiff in work discrimination suit sticking to fight". CNN . Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  2. 1 2 3 Cherney, Elyssa (December 1, 2016). "In case involving Indiana teacher, judges consider workplace protections for LGBT community". Chicago Tribune . Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  3. 1 2 3 Stern, Mark Joseph. "A Thunderbolt From the 7th Circuit". Slate . Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853F.3d339 (7th Cir.2017).
  5. ↑ Hays, Holly V. (April 4, 2017). "7th Circuit rules that civil rights laws protect LGBT employees from workplace bias". The Indianapolis Star . Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Eskridge, William N. Jr. (November 2017). "Title VII's Statutory History and the Sex Discrimination Argument for LGBT Workplace Protections". Yale Law Journal . 127: 322–404.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 "Statutory Interpretation — Title VII — Seventh Circuit Holds Sexual Orientation Discrimination is a Form of Sex Discrimination" (PDF). Harvard Law Review . 131: 1489–1496. March 2018.
  8. ↑ Corcoran, Tyler (Summer 2018). "Comment: Rethinking Title VII's Protections Against Sex Discrimination in an Employment Context, Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir.)". Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy. 13: 5.
  9. 1 2 Haag, Matthew; Chokshi, Niraj (April 4, 2017). "Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Court Rules". The New York Times . Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  10. ↑ Odendahl, Marilyn (August 7, 2018). "Settlement reached in Indiana Title VII case that started judicial shift". The Indiana Lawyer. Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  11. ↑ Connors, Catherine R. (August 16, 2017). "From Ulane to Hively". Pierce Atwood LLP.
  12. ↑ "Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital". SCOTUSblog .
  13. ↑ Stohr, Greg (December 11, 2017). "U.S. Supreme Court Turns Away Sexual-Orientation Bias Case". Bloomberg.
  14. ↑ Gerstein, Josh; Rainey, Rebecca (June 15, 2020). "With LGBT ruling, Supreme Court hands liberals a surprise victory". Politico . Retrieved June 15, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.