All employment attorneys—and most employers—know that Title VII bars discrimination based on certain enumerated personal characteristics: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It has long been the case that “sex” meant biological sex only, i.e., discriminating against a woman because she is a woman,
On November 4, 2016, a federal judge in Pennsylvania became the latest jurist to side with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in endorsing the viability of claims based on sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In U.S. EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, the EEOC brought
In July 2015, the EEOC officially took the position that sexual orientation claims may be brought under the non-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, in the recent case of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the Seventh Circuit refused to accept the EEOC’s position and affirmed the
Discrimination against people on grounds of their sexual orientation is a topic widely discussed in European politics. For example, only recently, in Ireland marriage between same sex partners became lawful. In Germany, it is still not possible for same sex partners to marry. They can only enter into a so-called registered civil partnership (eingetragene
Before the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations came into force in 2003, there was no specific protection for employees from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the UK (although attempts had been made to use the human rights and sex discrimination legislation). The law on sexual orientation discrimination is now set out in the