Illinois court dismisses Kimberly Hively Title VII case contradicting Obama stance on gay rights, transgenders and Civil Rights Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled in opposition to President Obama’s redefinition of Title VII anti-discrimination law to include homosexuals and transgender persons is not actual or enforceable. The court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not address workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, dismissing a lawsuit by a lesbian educator who was fired.
“Title VII does not apply to claims of sexual orientation discrimination, and therefore Hively has made a claim for which there is no legal remedy,” the court had stated during the first dismissal in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College.
Kimberly Hively sued ITCC after the non-renewal of her teaching contract, claiming the decision was based on her openly living as a lesbian.
Hively appealed, but again, the appellate court ruled that Title VII does not deal with sexual orientation.
The judges expressed sympathy for gay people losing their jobs, but the court decided to legally interpret that law as it exists and not legislate from the bench.
The ruling briefly mentioned the recent announcement by the Obama Administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, made July 15, stating that the Administration believed Title VII did encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. But the appellate court determined “the rulings of the EEOC are not binding.”
The court used “precedent,” citing two cases (Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., Hamm v. Weyauwega Milk Prods.) that found sexual orientation is not included in Title VII law and then reasoned that judges were “bound” by those previous rulings.
Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told Life Site News that with this important ruling the courts have finally recognized President Obama is advancing an agenda as if it were in the law but which in fact is not. “This decision is a blow to the Obama administration distortion of Title VII regulations to mean something other than prohibition of discrimination based upon biological sex.”
The court paved the way for legal remedy by suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court, or Congressional legislation, could fix the problem and explicitly include homosexuality and transgenderism under anti-discrimination law.
The court also tried to pave the way for a loophole in Title VII law, claiming that homosexuals are included if the case is one of “stereotyping.”
The U.S. Supreme Court adopted “stereotyping” into law in 1989 (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins) after a woman was denied a promotion allegedly because she acted like a man.
photo/Twitter Burger King
