ADVERTISEMENT
About Our People Legal Stuff
Gay pride flags fly over the harbor in Provincetown, Mass., Wednesday, July 9, 2014. Located on the extreme tip of Cape Cod, Provincetown is a small coastal resort town known for its gay-friendly atmosphere and night life. Since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, Provincetown has become a destination for same-sex weddings. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

A federal court ruled the Civil Rights Act also prohibits LGBT workplace discrimination

0

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that employees can't be fired or otherwise discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, a  move that gay rights group called a "game-changer."

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is likely to head to the Supreme Court, since it based its ruling on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In an 8-3 decision, judges ruled the landmark legislation also applied to sexual orientation, even if it was not originally intended to do so.

This decision is a game-changer for lesbian and gay employees ... it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Greg Nevins, Lambda Legal

"I don't see why firing a lesbian because she is ... a lesbian should be thought any less a form of sex discrimination than firing a woman because she's a woman," Judge Richard Posner wrote in a concurrent opinion.  

The lawsuit began when Kimberly Hively sued after Ivy Tech Community College did not promote her to a full-time job. She alleged this was because of her being a lesbian. ITCC wrote in a statement that its policies prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and it did not pass over Hively because of her sexuality.

The ruling came on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. 

We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it...
Judge Diane Sykes, dissenting

Dissenting judges argued the reference to "sex" in the Civil Rights Act wasn't intended to refer to sexual orientation, but whether a worker was male or female. Judge Diane Sykes, who wrote the dissenting opinion, argued it was understandable the court wanted to protect LGBT people, but that was Congress' responsibility to change the law.

LGBT advocates argued the ruling was "huge."

How much do you know about US immigration laws?
Take our quiz

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Comments
Read Comments
Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest Linked In List Menu Enlarge Gallery Info Menu Close Angle Down Angle Up Angle Left Angle Right Grid Grid Play Align Left Search Youtube Mail Mail Angle Down Bookmark