Employment Law

Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College — Study Notes

853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017)

Study notes for Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation constitutes discrimination 'because of sex' under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Professor Notes

In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the Seventh Circuit addressed the critical question of whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation falls under the ambit of sex discrimination as prohibited by Title VII. The court's decision was grounded in the recognition that sexual orientation is intrinsically linked to sex; thus, an employer’s discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation constitutes a failure to treat an individual equally as compared to others of a different sex. The ruling signifies a crucial enhancement in employment discrimination law, pushing for an expansive interpretation of Title VII that aligns with contemporary understandings of discrimination. Professors may emphasize the implications of this ruling for future employment cases and the evolving nature of federal anti-discrimination protections.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What was the basis of Hively's claims against Ivy Tech Community College?
  2. 2How did the Seventh Circuit interpret Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination in relation to sexual orientation?
  3. 3What prior case precedents were considered in Hively's ruling?
  4. 4Can sexual orientation discrimination be argued as a type of gender stereotype discrimination?
  5. 5Discuss the broader implications of the Hively decision on employment law.
  6. 6What are potential counterarguments to recognizing sexual orientation as sex discrimination under Title VII?
  7. 7How does the ruling in this case interact with other circuits' decisions on sexual orientation discrimination?
Mnemonic Device

S.O.S. - Sexual Orientation is Sex discrimination.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsPrice Waterhouse established that gender stereotyping can constitute sex discrimination, while Hively extends these principles to directly include sexual orientation.
Bostock v. Clayton CountyBostock reaffirmed Hively's ruling at the Supreme Court level, but Hively set the initial precedent within the Seventh Circuit.
Doe v. City of BellevilleDoe involved transgender discrimination, focusing more on gender identity, whereas Hively specifically addressed sexual orientation.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Recognizing sexual orientation discrimination as a form of sex discrimination aligns with societal advances in understanding diversity and supports a more inclusive workforce.

Against the Rule

Opponents may argue that the original intent of Title VII did not encompass sexual orientation and that such an extension should be a legislative rather than judicial function.

Class Discussion Points
  • Examine the implications of Hively on employment practices in institutions of higher education.
  • Discuss how this case challenges existing stereotypes related to sexual orientation.
  • Explore the potential for similar cases in other circuits and the future of Title VII interpretations.
Exam Angle

Students may be asked to analyze the implications of Hively in relation to Title VII and provide critiques from a policy perspective. Expect to see hypotheticals that test the boundaries of discrimination definitions under federal law.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.