A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The 8-3 decision is unprecedented, as all other federal appeals court rulings have sided with employers. The Supreme Court has never heard a case on the issue.

Chief Judge Diane Wood, writing for the majority opinion, said “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination,” and that “it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.'” Wood, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, added that her ruling was based on the “common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex.”

The case, Kimberly Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, centers around a professor in South Bend, Indiana. Openly lesbian, Kimberley Hively had been working as a part-time professor at Ivy Tech’s South Bend campus from 2000 to 2014. Six times between 2009 to 2014, Hively applied to full-time positions at the college. She was denied an interview all six times and, in July 2014, the college did not renew her part-time contract.

Hively sued the college, but a federal district court ruled in favor of Ivy Tech. Tuesday’s decision vacates the lower court’s decision. Federal law, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, is also protected by federal law.

Writing for the dissenting opinion, Judge Diane Sykes said the ruling was “momentous,” and amounted to “the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves.” Sykes, who President Donald Trump reportedly considered nominating to the Supreme Court, continued: “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.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Appeals Court Rules LGBT Discrimination Violates the Civil Rights Act appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, Saks Fifth Avenue took a page from the book of fellow upscale department store Barneys New York and attempted to justify its discriminative policies. But instead of partaking in racist actions against customers, Saks is discriminating against a transgender employee.

Former employee Leyth O. Jamal filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a Texas Saks, claiming she was fired for being transgender. So instead of owning up to its mistakes and offering an apology, Saks tried to find a loophole to justify its actions. The company claimed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include trans* people. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has concluded that Title VII could qualify for discrimination “based on sex” in the past. And if that’s not convincing enough for you, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department have also ruled that Title VII includes people of any trans* identity.

While these laws should definitely be properly amended to explicitly mention people on the trans* spectrum, that doesn’t get Saks off the hook. The company also insisted on using male pronouns to identify Jamal throughout its filings, even adding a “[sic]” every time it quoted Jamal referring to herself as female. Just as Leelah Alcorn’s parents continued to refer to her as male in their statements, referring to a person by anything other that the gender that he or she has chosen is ignorant and just plain disrespectful.

It is absolutely unacceptable for Saks to try to get away with such putrid behavior when the fashion industry is peppered with people who identify all across the LGBTQ spectrum. It shouldn’t be okay In any industry to mistreat trans* people, but it breaks my heart to hear that this is still happening in the progressive industry that I love. Both Saks and the government need to update their perspectives and become more inclusive of both trans* and LGBTQ people, so no one has to fall victim to discrimination, self-harm, and violence like Jamal, Alcorn, and Kimy Hartman all did.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saks Defends Discrimination Against Transgender Employee appeared first on Law Street.