Groundbreaking Decision Expands Protections to Sexual Orientation

by Megan A. Benevento
April 6th, 2017

Since June 26, 2015, when jubilant masses swarmed First Street in front of the Supreme Court and the White House illuminated the night with rainbow lights, lawyers, scholars, and many citizens have waited with bated breath to see how the legacy of Obergefell v. Hodges would shape the next generation of jurisprudence.

On Tuesday, the first Court of Appeals in our nation's history ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, Case No. 15-1720 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The decision over-ruled over 50 years of jurisprudence. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took this opportunity to revisit the Act’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination “to take a fresh look at our position in light of developments at the Supreme Court extending over two decades.” One of the most critical developments on which the Court based its decision was Judge Kennedy’s decision in Obergefell, which held that the liberties granted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2597, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015) (ruling that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry). 

Though the pending confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch could alter this legal course, the balance of the Court still supports Kennedy’s holding that same-sex couples are entitled equal dignity and equal protections under the law. This is because the conservative originalist Justice Scalia was a dissenting vote in Obergefell and Gorusch (assuming he would also side with the conservative Justices) would merely replace Scalia's vote in the minority on this issue.

The civil rights and employment attorneys at Joseph Greenwald & Laake are following this case closely, ready to utilize it as persuasive authority in our Title VII cases to seek justice for victims of discrimination.

Megan Benevento is a civil litigation lawyer and dedicated advocate with deep experience in protecting and enforcing the rights of children, parents, and other individuals who are victims of the system. She handles a broad range of civil rights and general litigation matters before state and federal courts throughout Maryland and the Washington, D.C. area, including police brutality, child abuse, domestic abuse, First Amendment violations, mistreatment of prisoners, significant personal injury, business litigation, professional and medical malpractice, and class action fraud litigation.

Contact Megan Benevento

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.