{"id":1467,"date":"2020-06-08T08:29:09","date_gmt":"2020-06-08T13:29:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=1467"},"modified":"2024-01-11T17:45:07","modified_gmt":"2024-01-11T23:45:07","slug":"hively-v-ivy-tech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1467","title":{"rendered":"Hively v. Ivy Tech"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the summer of 2015, same-sex couples celebrated a civil rights victory following the Supreme Court\u2019s monumental decision in Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> The Court recognized same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marriage, protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. While the right to marriage was immediate, this decision did not mark the end of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Rather, the holding created a \u201clegal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The potential for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation hinges on the unsettled Title VII provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act<\/a> meant to shield employees from unlawful employment practices. The provision prohibits discrimination \u201cagainst any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual\u2019s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, the Seventh Circuit decided the paradoxical issue of whether sexual orientation is included as a protected Title VII category in Hively v. Ivy Tech<\/em><\/a>. There, the court held that \u201cdiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of discrimination.\u201d The opinion sparked debate because the court\u2019s holding addressed an ambiguous issue that was neither addressed by the text of the statute nor corrected by the legislature after enactment. However, this post focuses on the constitutionality of the decision, namely the clash between the court\u2019s role as a faithful agent of the legislature juxtaposed with the danger of unelected officials making rulings on far-reaching legal matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The perplexing issue is that both the majority and dissent are correct in a sense. The Hively<\/em> majority arrives at the correct outcome by protecting same-sex couples from discrimination, but the dissent provides an astute statutory and constitutional analytical framework. Specifically, the dissent notes<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a statute supplies the rule of decision, our role is to give effect to the enacted text, interpreting the statutory language as a reasonable person would have understood it at the time of enactment. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mindful of the dangers associated with judicial activism, the dissent likely drew analysis from Article I of the U.S. Constitution<\/a>: \u201cAll legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.\u201d The text is clear that Congress has the unequivocal and exclusive right to legislate. Since enacting the statute, Congress has yet to amend Title VII to specifically include employment protections for individuals in same-sex relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the matter is not so easily settled. The U.S. Constitution<\/a> also declares that \u201c[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States.\u201d Congress had decades to clarify their legislation but failed to do so. Instead, the answer is provided by Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court was explicit that federal courts are authorized and obligated to interpret Title VII relief for plaintiff justice<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of Title VII is to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination. This is shown by the very fact that Congress took care to arm the courts with full equitable powers. For it is the historical purpose of equity to secure complete justice. Where federally protected rights have been invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that courts will be alert to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Failure to exercise judicial authority in the present case is not adherence to separation of powers, it is an abandonment of constitutional obligations. The Seventh Circuit could only fulfill its constitutional obligation to properly interpret Title VII by protecting individuals in same-sex relationships from employment discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the spring of 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this matter, and unlike Hively v. Ivy Tech<\/em>, the Supreme Court\u2019s 2020 decision will settle the matter. As the nation holds its breath in anticipation, I sincerely hope the Court considers its constitutional grant of power to decide this question in favor of greater protection from discrimination. Failure to protect people from employment discrimination due to their sexual orientation will send a disheartening message to all people who love across genders. They will witness an impotent judiciary, they will never be made whole, and they will forever live in fear knowing there are no repercussions for same-sex discrimination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the summer of 2015, same-sex couples celebrated a civil rights victory following the Supreme Court\u2019s monumental decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court recognized same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marriage, protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. While the right to marriage was immediate, this decision did not mark the end of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Rather, the holding created a \u201clegal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":130,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[48],"tags":[47,273,274,30,36,38,276,278],"class_list":["post-1467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1l-blog-contest","tag-1l-blog","tag-1l-blog-contest","tag-1l-contest","tag-discrimination","tag-employment-discrimination","tag-employment-law","tag-hively-v-icy-tech","tag-lgbtqia"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-nF","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":129,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=129","url_meta":{"origin":1467,"position":0},"title":"The Seventh Circuit\u2019s Admirable but Misguided Ruling on Transgender Discrimination","author":"Adam Alexander","date":"January 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"The Seventh Circuit recently addressed discrimination issues involving a transgender student in a case of first impression, Whitaker v. Kenosha (2017), holding that a transgender student was protected by Title IX\u2019s prohibition against sex-based discrimination. The court theorized that because transgender people do not conform to traditional stereotypes associated with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1463,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1463","url_meta":{"origin":1467,"position":1},"title":"Korematsu, COVID-19, and The Question of Executive Deference","author":"Megan Lenz","date":"June 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWrong the day it was decided\u201d is a judgment that the Supreme Court reserves for overturning its most egregious prior decisions. One of the cases that most recently received that declaration is Korematsu v. United States, a decision that infamously sanctioned the World War II internment of individuals of Japanese\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=48"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1465,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1465","url_meta":{"origin":1467,"position":2},"title":"Who Among Us Is the Reasonable Person?","author":"HanByul Chang","date":"June 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Our cultural understanding of \u201ccriminal\u201d heavily influences how the elements of a criminal defense are defined and applied. Kansas Supreme Court case State v. Stewart was no exception to this rule. The defendant in this case, a victim of a long-term domestic abuse by her husband, Mike, was charged with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=48"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/mauro-mora-31-pOduwZGE-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/mauro-mora-31-pOduwZGE-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/mauro-mora-31-pOduwZGE-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/mauro-mora-31-pOduwZGE-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/mauro-mora-31-pOduwZGE-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/mauro-mora-31-pOduwZGE-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":135,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=135","url_meta":{"origin":1467,"position":3},"title":"Equal Protection and the Social Sciences Beyond Criminal Justice","author":"Noor Tarabishy","date":"November 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Following a discussion about the use of social science evidence in the criminal justice system at the Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, Professor Laura Beth Nielsen\u00a0(Northwestern, Sociology) moderated a panel that explored the varying degrees of success social science has had and the challenges faced by advocates in civil rights\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "On Campus"","block_context":{"text":"On Campus","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=17"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1000,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1000","url_meta":{"origin":1467,"position":4},"title":"NULR 1L Writing Competition: Dred Scott v. Sandford (Dissent)","author":"Walter Garcia","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Photo by\u00a0\u00c1lvaro Serrano\u00a0on\u00a0Unsplash The idea of diversity has influenced some of our country's most important judicial decisions.\u00a0We asked Northwestern 1Ls to write about a case they studied in their first year of law school that has affected their opinion about diversity in the legal system.\u00a0Walter was one of the winners.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=48"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/alvaro-serrano-133360-unsplash-1-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/alvaro-serrano-133360-unsplash-1-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/alvaro-serrano-133360-unsplash-1-1024x683.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1001,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1001","url_meta":{"origin":1467,"position":5},"title":"NULR 1L Writing Competition: Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Critique)","author":"Meher Babbar","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Photo by Miko Guziuk on Unsplash The idea of diversity has influenced some of our country's most important judicial decisions.\u00a0We asked Northwestern 1Ls to write about a case they studied in their first year of law school that has affected their opinion about diversity in the legal system. Meher was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=48"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/miko-guziuk-1151287-unsplash-2-1024x768.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/miko-guziuk-1151287-unsplash-2-1024x768.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/miko-guziuk-1151287-unsplash-2-1024x768.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/130"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}