Student’s Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Introduction
Title VII of the civil rights act is one of the laws that was amended in 1964 to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, race, color, the nation of origin and, religion. Employers included in this category are the federal, state, and local governments as well as employers with more than fifteen employees. Others include public colleges, universities, labor organizations, and employees.
Kimberly Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
The case of Kimberly Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana was based on Hively’s sexual orientation, in which she is a lesbian (Patti, pp2). She complains that the college denied her employment-based because she was a lesbian. Kimberly’s defense is that Title VII of the civil rights action under federal laws protects her against such discrimination. Therefore, she seeks justice on the claim that her sexual orientation is being violated. The District Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII.
Jameka K. Evans vs. Georgia Regional Hospital, Charles Moss
A second case, involving Jameka K. Evans vs. Georgia Regional Hospital, Charles Moss is another sex orientation case in which the plaintiff is dismissed, claiming that evidence provided was not sufficient to claim it discrimination under Title VII. Evans is appointed a Lambda legal counsel to represent in the appeal court (ORDER, R. E. B. O. P., & STAY, G. M, pp7). T. The court explains that title VII does not serve to protect gender non-conformity under homosexuality and same-sex discrimination.
Analysis
Title VII is to be understood based on the understanding of congress when it was being formulated in the ear 1964. The outlining of discrimination against sex meant male or female, and not based on sexual orientation. During the formulation of the act, sex orientation based on same-sex gender was not in recognition; therefore, the intent of the law was not found on the sexual orientation of the same gender.
The equal employment opportunity commission, however, interprets the title VII as to cover discrimination against sexual orientation. The claim for this is that the act only provided for sex discrimination without a particular reference. The bill did not give a breakdown of whether sex in terms of gender or sexual orientation. This, therefore, mandates the jurisdiction to include any form of sex-related discipline when refereeing to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963. The reason for this interpretation is that there is no federal statute that is explicitly addressing the case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. This, therefore, mandates the legal team to use title VII for defense against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The discrimination based on sexual orientation may not have been directly included in the act but is under executive orders that the law prohibits it. President Bill Clinton offered an executive order 12968, which protected citizens against sexual orientation discrimination. The quote includes the clauses in the title VII civil rights act of 1964. In 2010, the administration of Obama mandated the Equal Employment Opportunity Communications to include gender identity as part of the items being protected against discrimination (Dreiband, Brett & Jones, pp3). Gender identity is a broader term that consolidates all types of sexual orientation that individuals have, from homosexuals, lesbians, and gas. President Obama did the addition of gender identity under the list of sex discrimination under the executive order 13672.
The banning of the employment discrimination bill has been introduced since 1994. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) prohibited employers from discriminating against sexual orientation and identity. In 2007, a new item was added to the law, which was gender identity. By 2012, the Equity Act was introduced, which consolidated all the requirements that guarded against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and related disciplines.
Opinion
Based on the amendments above, discrimination on sexual orientation is inclusive in title VII. The support is on the executive order that is issued by the administration that is in power. The title VII maybe interrelated differently according to the time it was being formulated, but a plaintiff seeking defense would better use the executive orders. This is because the clauses therein are not expressively provided as in the executive orders.
For the case of Hively, the court was right to grant her the complaint against the defendant. The interpretation of sex in the title VII did not give details of what is entailed in sex discrimination. The legal team can, therefore, categorize any form of sex discrimination under this act. Therefore, sex orientation discrimination is protected under Title VII, being backed up by the executive order, which introduces other items like gender identity under the rule of President Obama.
Conclusion
In conclusion, every court order and ruling follows the most recent updates or similar acts and amendments. In this case, the government amendments are to be followed or to be used as a basis for interpretation. In future cases, the court can assess changes that have been made on a bill from its formulation to the most recent amendments.
Work Cited
Dreiband, Eric S., Brett Swearingen, And Jones Day. “The Evolution Of Title VII—Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, And The Civil Rights Act Of 1964.” Jones Day, Cleveland, OH (2015).
Patti, Camille. “Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College: Losing the Battle but Winning the War for Title VII Sexual Orientation Discrimination Protection.” Tul. JL & Sexuality 26 (2017): 133.
ORDER, R. E. B. O. P., & STAY, G. M. T. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.2012