Title VII and Sexual Orientation
| Author | Matthew W. Green, Jr. |
| Pages | 9-48 |
!
!
!
Μ!
!
0007&
!7& =1)5≅&∆∃4+,+15&6()−?(,%+Ε(−&
!
!∀#∃%&∋()∗+),∃−∋.∋−)/∀0+)12+3)4%−+)
ΦΓΗ&87Ι4&ϑΙΚ&ΛΜ%∋&ΝΜΚΗΟ7&
!
ΗΨβΘ2!Η∃)03∃&!Γ3∗≅∋>!
∆−/∋!−,∗!(∋7−/∋!#+7+%∋Σ3−/%! 4)+3≅#&!)∋∋! %∋1−)−&∋!(∋∗∋)−/! ∗∃%&)∃0&!0+3)&! −0&∃+,%! 0/−∃7∃,≅!−&!
∋∃)!∋71/+Α∋)%!+)!(+)7∋)!∋71/+Α∋)%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!∋7!∃,!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∋0∃%∃+,%!4∋0−3%∋!
+(!∋∃)!#+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α∀#∋Α!−//∋≅∋∗!−&!%30#!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!6∃+/−&∋∗!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!+(!∋!Η∃6∃/!η∃≅#&%!
Ι0&!+(!:χαΝ2!Ν8!Τ
0+71/−∃,&%!−%!(−∃/∃,≅!&+!%&−&∋!0/−∃7%!3,∗∋)!∋∃∋)!%&−&3&∋−11∋−/∋∗
%∃7∃/−)∃&Α! +(! ∃%%3∋%! ∃,6+/6∋∗2! ∃%! 0+3)&! 0+,%+/∃∗−&∋∗! ∋! −11∋−/%! −&! ∋! )∋ι3∋%&! +(! 0+3,%∋/! (+)!
−11∋//−,&%
!
Κ
Ι
Appellant Strailey, a male, was fired by the Happy Times Nursery School after two years’ service
−%!−!&∋−0#∋)
∋!0+77∋,0∋7∋,&!+(!∋!%0#++/!Α∋−)(∃/∋∗!−!0#−)≅∋!Β∃!∋![ι3−/![71/+Α7∋,&!β11+)&3,∃&Α!
Η+77∃%%∃+,!Ο[[βΗΡ!Β#∃0#! ∋! [[βΗ! )∋Ξ∋0&∋∗! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! −,! −//∋≅∋∗!/−0Χ!+(! Ξ3)∃%∗∃0&∃+,! +6∋)!
0/−∃7%!+(!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 4−%∋∗!+,! %∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,Ψ∋!∋,!(∃/∋∗! %3∃&!+,!4∋#−/(! +(!#∃7%∋/(! −,∗!
−//!+∋)%!%∃7∃/−)/Α!%∃&3−&∋∗2!%∋∋Χ∃,≅!∗∋0/−)−&+)Α2!∃,Ξ3,0&∃6∋2!−,∗!7+,∋&−)Α!)∋/∃∋(∗∃%&)∃0&!0+3)&!
∗∃%7∃%%∋∗!∋!0+71/−∃,&!−%!(−∃/∃,≅!&+!%&−&∋!−!0/−∃7!3,∗∋)!∋∃∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!+)!λ!:χγΟ_Ρ<!
!
Π
δ∋Μ−,&∃%2!Π+Α/∋2!−,∗!Μ∃7−)∗2!−//!7−/∋%2!0/−∃7∋∗!−&!Λ−0∃(∃0!∀∋/∋1#+,∋!ϕ!∀∋/∋≅)−1#!Η+
∃71∋)7∃%%∃4/Α!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&! ∋7!4∋0−3%∋! +(!∋∃)! #+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α−//∋≅∋∗!−&!
#∋!Β−%! ,+&! #∃)∋∗! Β#∋,! −! Λ∀ϕ∀! %31∋)6∃%+)!0+,0/3∗∋∗!−&! #∋! Β−%! −! #+7+%∋Σ3−/ Ι00+)∗∃,≅! &+!
appellants’ brief, “BOYLE was continually harassed by his co.Β+)Χ∋)%!−,∗!#−∗!&+!ι3∃&!&+!1)∋%∋)6∋!
#∃%!#∋−/!−(&∋)!+,/Α!)∋∋!7+,%!4∋0−3%∋!#∃%!%31∋)6∃%+)%!∗∃∗!,+∃,≅!&+!−//∋6∃−&∋!this condition.”
Finally, “SIMARD was forced to quit under similar conditions after almost four years of
∋71/+Α7∋,&!Β∃! Λ∀ϕ∀2! 43&! #∋!Β−%!#−)−%%∋∗! 4Α! #∃%! %31∋)6∃%+)%!Ο−%!Β∋//Ρ Κ,!−∗∗∃&∃+,2! #∃%!
1∋)%+,,∋/!(∃/∋!#−%!4∋∋,!7−)Χ∋∗!−%!,+&!∋/∃≅∃4/∋!(+)!)∋#∃)∋2!−,∗!#∃%!−11/∃0−&∃+,%!(+)!∋71/+Α7∋,&!Β∋)∋!
rejected by PT&T in 1974 and 1976.” Appellants DeSantis, Boyle, and Simard also alleged that
Λ∀ϕ∀!+((∃0∃−/%!#−6∋!134/∃0/Α!%&−&∋∗!−&!∋Α!Β+3/∗!,+&!#∃)∋!#+7+%∋Σ3−/%
∀#∋%∋! 1/−∃,&∃((%! −/%+! (∃/∋∗! 0#−)≅∋%! Β∃! ∋! [[βΗ2! −/%+! )∋Ξ∋0&∋∗! 4Α! ∋! [[βΗ! (+)! /−0Χ! +(!
Ξ3)∃%∗∃0&∃+,4∋#−/(!+(!∋7%∋/6∋%!−,∗!−//!+∋)%!%∃7∃/−)/Α!%∃&3−&∋∗!%∋∋Χ∃,≅!
!
!
!
∀Ι!
!
∗∋0/−)−&+)Α2!∃,Ξ3,0&∃6∋2!−,∗!7+,∋&−)Α!)∋/∃∋(!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!
0+3)&!∃%%3∋!7−,∗−73%!0+77−,∗∃,≅!∋![[βΗ!&+!1)+0∋%%!0#−)≅∋%!4−%∋∗!+,!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,∀#∋!
∗∃%&)∃0&!0+3)&! ∗∃%7∃%%∋∗! ∋∃)! 0+71/−∃,& Κ&! #∋/∗! −&! ∋! 0+3)&!/−0Χ∋∗!Ξ3)∃%∗∃0&∃+,!&+! 0+71∋/! ∋!
[[βΗ!&+!−/&∋)!∃&%!∃,&∋)1)∋&−&∃+,!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ&!−/%+!#∋/∗!−&!−11∋//−,&%!#−∗!,+&!%&−&∋∗!6∃−4/∋!0/−∃7%!
3,∗∋)!
!
Η
ϑ3,∗∃,!−,∗! Π30Χ/∋Α2! 4+! (∋7−/∋%2!Β∋)∋!+1∋)−&+)%! Β∃! Λ∀ϕ∀ ∀#∋Α!(∃/∋∗!%3∃&! ∃,! (∋∗∋)−/! 0+3)&!
−//∋≅∃,≅!−&! Λ∀ϕ∀!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&! ∋7!4∋0−3%∋!+(! ∋∃)! Χ,+Β,!/∋%4∃−,! )∋/−&∃+,%#∃1! −,∗!
∋6∋,&3−//Α!(∃)∋∗!∋7
4∋0−3%∋!+(!∋∃)!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1−//∋≅∋∗!−&!∋!3,∃+,!−&!)∋1)∋%∋,&∋∗!#∋)!−%!−!Λ∀ϕ∀!
+1∋)−&+)!(−∃/∋∗!−∗∋ι3−&∋/Α!&+!)∋1)∋%∋,&!#∋)!∃,&∋)∋%&%!−,∗!(−∃/∋∗!−∗∋ι3−&∋/Α!&+!1)∋%∋,&!#∋)!≅)∃∋6−,0∋!
)∋≅−)∗∃,≅! #∋)! &)∋−&7∋,&
∗∃%7∃%%∋∗!∋∃)!%3∃&!−%!,+&!%&−&∃,≅!−!0/−∃7!31+,!Β#∃0#!)∋/∃∋(!0+3/∗!4∋!≅)−,&∋∗
!
ΚΚ
Ι11∋//−,&%! −)≅3∋! (∃)%&! −&! ∋! ∗∃%&)∃0&! 0+3)&%! ∋))∋∗! ∃,! #+/∗∃,≅! −&! ∀∃&/∋!= ΚΚ!∗+∋%! ,+&! 1)+#∃4∃&!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! +,! ∋! 4−%∃%! +(! %∋Σ3−/! 1)∋(∋)∋,0∋
employment discrimination on the basis of “sex,” Congress meant to include discrimination on the
4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−≅−∃,%&!
#+7+%∋Σ3−/%! ∗∃%1)+1+)&∃+,−&∋/Α! ∋((∋0&%! ο%∃0π! 7∋,! −,∗! −&! ∃%! ∗∃%1)+1+)&∃+,−&∋! ∃71−0&! −,∗!
0+))∋/−&∃+,!4∋&Β∋∋,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%! +(! %∋Σ3−/! 1)∋(∋)∋,0∋! −,∗! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! +,! ∋!
basis of “sex” requires that sexual preference be considered a subcategory of the “sex” category
+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ
A. Congressional Intent in Prohibiting “Sex” Discriminat∃+,!
Κ,!Κ+77+ϑ&.∗ =Μ∗ 2∋65−∋∗ 2,)∃∋∀∃,∗ Ν∗2! αα! ⊥<8∗! αχ! Οχ! Η∃) 1/−∃,&∃((! −)≅3∋∗! −&! #∋)!
∋71/+Α∋)!#−∗!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!#∋)!4∋0−3%∋!%#∋!Β−%!3,∗∋)≅+∃,≅!−!%∋Σ!&)−,%(+)7−&∃+,!−,∗!−&!
this discrimination violated Title VII’s prohibition on sex di%0)∃7∃,−&∃+, )∋Ξ∋0&∋∗!−&!
0/−∃72!Β)∃&∃,≅>!∀#∋!0−%∋%!∃,&∋)1)∋&∃,≅!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!1)+6∃%∃+,%!−≅)∋∋!−&!∋Α!Β∋)∋!
∃,&∋,∗∋∗!&+!1/−0∋!Β+7∋,!+,!−,!∋ι3−/!(++&∃,≅!Β∃!7∋,
!
Φ∃6∃,≅!∋! %&−&3&∋!∃&%! 1/−∃,! 7∋−,∃,≅2!∃%! 0+3)&! 0+,0/3∗∋%!−&! Η+,≅)∋%%!#−∗!+,/Α! ∋!&)−∗∃&∃+,−/!
notions of “sex” in mind. Later legislative activity makes this narrow definition even more evident.
Μ∋6∋)−/!4∃//%!#−6∋!4∋∋,!∃,&)+∗30∋∗!&+!−7∋,∗!∋!Η∃6∃/!η∃≅#&%!Ι0&!&+!1)+#∃4∃&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−≅−∃,%&!
“sexual preference.” None have [sic]!4∋∋,!∋,−0&∋∗!∃,&+!/−Β
!!
Congress has not shown any intent other than to restrict the term “sex” to its traditional meaning.
Therefore, this court will not expand Title VII’s application in the absence of Congressi+,−/!
mandate. The manifest purpose of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination in
∋71/+Α7∋,&!∃%!&+!∋,%3)∋!−&!7∋,!−,∗!Β+7∋,!−)∋!&)∋−&∋∗!∋ι3−//Α2!−4%∋,&!−!4+,−!(∃∗∋!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1!
between the qualifications for the job and the person’s sex.!
!!
!
!
!
∀∀!
!
Following Holloway, we conclude that Title VII’s prohibition of “sex” discrimination applies only
&+!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! +,!∋! 4−%∃%!+(! ≅∋,∗∋)!−,∗! %#+3/∗!,+&! 4∋!Ξ3∗∃0∃−//Α!∋Σ&∋,∗∋∗!&+!∃,0/3∗∋! %∋Σ3−/!
1)∋(∋)∋,0∋!%30#!−%!#+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α
!!
Π
!
Ι11∋//−,&%! −)≅3∋! −&! )∋0∋,&! ∗∋0∃%∃+,%! ∗∋−/∃,≅! Β∃! ∗∃%1)+1+)&∃+,−&∋! ∃71−0&! )∋ι3∃)∋! −&!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−≅−∃,%&!#+7+%∋Σ3−/%!(−//! Β∃∃,!∋!13)6∃∋Β!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ−&!∋%∋!
)∋0∋,&! ∗∋0∃%∃+,%2! /∃Χ∋! 9∋(??∀∗ =Μ∗ ∆−Ε∃∗ ≅+ϑ∃∋∗ <2! Ν9:! Τ
∋71/+Α7∋,&!0)∃&∋)∃+,!−&!−((∋0&%!+,∋!%∋Σ!7+)∋!−,!∋!+∋)!6∃+/−&∋%!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ
Φ)∃≅≅%>!
!
Ε#−&! ∃%! )∋ι3∃)∋∗! 4Α! Η+,≅)∋%%! Ο3,∗∋)! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚΡ! ∃%! ∋! )∋7+6−/! +(! −)&∃(∃0∃−/2!
−)4∃&)−)Α2! −,∗! 3,,∋0∋%%−)Α! 4−))∃∋)%! &+! ∋71/+Α7∋,&! Β#∋,! ∋! 4−))∃∋)%! +1∋)−&∋!
∃,6∃∗∃+3%/Α! &+! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋! +,! ∋! 4−%∃%! +(! )−0∃−/! +)! +∋)! ∃71∋)7∃%%∃4/∋!
0/−%%∃(∃0−&∃+,%
!!
Ν9:!Τ−&!Ν_:∀#∋Α!0/−∃7!−&!∃,!−!&)∃−/!∋Α!0+3/∗!1)+6∋!−&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−≅−∃,%&!#+7+%∋Σ3−/%!
∗∃%1)+1+)&∃+,−&∋/Α!−((∋0&%!7∋,!4+!4∋0−3%∋!+(!∋!≅)∋−&∋)!∃,0∃∗∋,0∋!+(!#+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α!∃,!∋!7−/∋!
population and because of the greater likelihood of an employer’s discovering male homosexuals
0+71−)∋∗!&+!(∋7−/∋!#+7+%∋Σ3−/%
!!
Ι%%37∃,≅!−&!−11∋//−,&%!0−,!+∋)Β∃%∋!%−&∃%(Α!∋!)∋ι3∃)∋7∋,&!+(!9∋(??∀2!Β∋!∗+!,+&!4∋/∃∋6∋!−&!
9∋(??∀! 0−,! 4∋! −11/∃∋∗! &+! ∋Σ&∋,∗! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ! 1)+&∋0&∃+,! &+! #+7+%∋Σ3−/%
∗∃%1)+1+)&∃+,−&∋!∃71−0&! +(! ∋∗30−&∃+,−/! &∋%&%!+,! 4/−0Χ%! 6∃+/−&∋∗! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ2!∋! Μ31)∋7∋! Η+3)&! ∃,!
9∋(??∀! %+3≅#&! &+! ∋((∋0&3−&∋! −!7−Ξ+)! 0+,≅)∋%%∃+,−/! 13)1+%∋! ∃,! ∋,−0&∃,≅! ∀ ∃&/∋! =ΚΚ>!1)+& ∋0&∃+,!+( !
4/−0Χ%!()+7!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!,+&∋∗!∃,!≅5(7Λ∋++Ε∗=Μ∗9+7)?∃662!
Ν8:!Τ, in construing a statute, “(o)ur objective . . . is to ascertain the congressional
intent and give effect to the legislative will.” !)
∀#∋! Κ+77+ϑ&.! 0+3)&! ,+&∋∗! −&! ∃,! 1−%%∃,≅! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ! Η+,≅)∋%%! ∗∃∗! ,+&! ∃,&∋,∗! &+! 1)+&∋0&! %∋Σ3−/!
+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!−,∗! #−%! )∋1∋−&∋∗/Α!)∋(3%∋∗!&+! ∋Σ&∋,∗! %30#! 1)+&∋0&∃+, Ι11∋//−,&%! ,+Β! −%Χ!3%!&+!
employ the disproportionate impact decisions as an artifice to “bootstrap” Title VII protection for
#+7+%∋Σ3−/%!3,∗∋)!∋!≅3∃%∋!+(!1)+&∋0&∃,≅!7∋,!≅∋,∋)−//Α
!
∀#∃%! Β∋! −)∋! ,+&! ()∋∋! &+! ∗+
+4Ξ∋0&∃6∋%!−%! ∋Σ1/∃0−&∋∗! ∃,! Ψ+//+Β−Α2! ,+&! ∋((∋0&3−&∋! 0+,≅)∋%%∃+,−/!≅+−/%!−%! ∃,! Φ)∃≅≅% Κ&! Β+3/∗!
achieve by judicial “construction” what Congress did not do and has 0+,%∃%&∋,&/Α!)∋(3%∋∗!&+!∗+!+,!
many occasions. It would violate the rule that our duty in construing a statute is to “ascertain . . .
and give effect to the legislative will.” ≅5(7Λ∋++Ε2! Ν8:!Τ!;:_ 0+,0/3∗∋!−&!∋!9∋(??∀!
∗∃%1)+1+)&∃+,−&∋!∃71−0&!∋+)Α!7−Α!,+&!4∋!−11/∃∋∗!&+!∋Σ&∋,∗!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!1)+&∋0&∃+,!&+!#+7+%∋Σ3−/%
!
Η
!
!
!
∀#!
!
!
Ι11∋//−,&%!,∋Σ&!0+,&∋,∗! −&!)∋0∋,&! ∗∋0∃%∃+,%!#−6∋! #∋/∗!−&! −,!∋71/+Α∋)! ≅∋,∋)−//Α!7−Α!,+&!3%∋!
∗∃((∋)∋,&!∋71/+Α7∋,&! 0)∃&∋)∃−! (+)! 7∋,! −,∗!Β+7∋, ∀#∋Α! 0/−∃7! −&! ∃(!−! 7−/∋! ∋71/+Α∋∋! 1)∋(∋)%!
7−/∋%!−%!%∋Σ3−/! 1−)&,∋)%2!#∋!Β∃//! 4∋!&)∋−&∋∗!∗∃((∋)∋,&/Α!()+7!−! (∋7−/∋!Β#+!1)∋(∋)%! 7−/∋!1−)&,∋)%
∀#∋Α!0+,0/3∗∋!−&!∋!∋71/+Α∋)!%!3%∋%!∗∃((∋)∋,&!∋71/+Α7∋,&!0)∃&∋)∃−!(+)!7∋,!−,∗!Β+7∋,!−,∗!
6iolates the Supreme Court’s warning in ≅5(77(3∀∗=Μ∗%&∋6(,Ρ%&∋(∃66&∗<2!Ν99!Τ!
!
∀#∋!Η+3)&! +(! Ι11∋−/%! ∋)∋(+)∋! ∋))∋∗! ∃,! )∋−∗∃,≅! ∃%! %∋0&∃+,! −%!1∋)7∃&&∃,≅!+,∋!
#∃)∃,≅!1+/∃0Α!(+)!Β+7∋,!−,∗!−,+∋)!(+)!7∋,!
!!
!)
!!
Ε∋!73%&!again reject appellants’ efforts to “bootstrap” Title VII protection for homosexuals. While
Β∋! ∗+! ,+&! ∋Σ1)∋%%! −11)+6−/! +(! −,! ∋71/+Α7∋,&! 1+/∃0Α! −&! ∗∃((∋)∋,&∃−&∋%! −00+)∗∃,≅! &+! %∋Σ3−/!
1)∋(∋)∋,0∋2! Β∋! ,+&∋! −&! Β#∋∋)! ∗∋−/∃,≅! Β∃! 7∋,! +)! Β+7∋,! ∋! ∋71/+Α∋)! ∃%! 3%∃,≅! ∋! %−7∋!
0)∃&∋)∃+,>!∃&!Β∃//! ,+&!#∃)∋! +)!1)+7+&∋! −!1∋)%+,! Β#+!1)∋(∋)%!%∋Σ3−/!1−)&,∋)%!+(!∋!%−7∋! %∋Σ
∃%!1+/∃0Α!∗+∋%!,+&!∃,6+/6∋!∗∃((∋)∋,&!∗∋0∃%∃+,−/!0)∃&∋)∃−!(+)!∋!%∋Σ∋%
!
δ
!
Ι11∋//−,&%!−)≅3∋!−&!∋
−&!∃&!Β+3/∗! 6∃+/−&∋!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ!(+)!−,!∋71/+Α∋)!&+!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋!−≅−∃,%&! ∋71/+Α∋∋%!4∋0−3%∋! +(!∋!
gender of their friends, appellants’ claims do not fall within this purported rule.!
!
[
!
Ι11∋//−,&!Μ&)−∃/∋Α!0+,&∋,∗%!−&!#∋!Β−%!&∋)7∃,−&∋∗!4Α!∋!Ψ−11Α!∀∃7∋%!53)%∋)Α!Μ0#++/!4∋0−3%∋!
−&!%0#++/!(∋/&!−&!∃&!Β−%!∃,−11)+1)∃−&∋!(+)!−!7−/∋!&∋−0#∋)!&+!Β∋−)!−,!∋−))∃,≅!&+!%0#++/∋!0/−∃7%!
that the school’s reliance on a stereotype that a male should have a virile ra∋)!−,!−,!∋((∋7∃,−&∋!
−11∋−)−,0∋!6∃+/−&∋%!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ
!!
!
!
!
∀∃!
!
In Holloway this court noted that Congress intended Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination in
∋71/+Α7∋,&! &+! 1)∋6∋,&! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! ≅∋,∗∋)2! ,+&! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,! +)!
1)∋(∋)∋,0∋ !η∋0∋,&/Α!∋! ⊥∃(!Η∃)03∃&! %∃7∃/−)/Α!)∋−∗! ∋!/∋≅∃%/−&∃6∋! #∃%&+)Α!+(!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ!−,∗!
0+,0/3∗∋∗!−&!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!%!∗+∋%!,+&!1)+&∋0&!−≅−∃,%&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!4∋0−3%∋!+(!∋((∋7∃,−0Α#Α(65∗
=Μ∗ 8(Λ∃∋6.∗ %−6−&7∗ !,∀−∋&,4∃∗ <2! αχ! ⊥<8∗! −&! _8α.8;
4∋0−3%∋! +(! ∋((∋7∃,−0Α2! /∃Χ∋! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! #+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α!
ΟΚ+77+ϑ&.Ρ2!∗+∋%!,+&!(−//!Β∃∃,!∋!13)6∃∋Β!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ
!
[
!
Having determined that appellants’ allegations do not implicate Title VII’s prohibition on sex
discrimination, we affirm the district court’s dismissals of the Title VII claims.!!
!
Ι⊥⊥Κη∆[δ
!
Χ+6∃∀∗&,)∗Σ−∃∀6(+,∀∗
:Discrimination “because #Π&−(Β”: Ι00+)∗∃,≅! &+! ∋! 5∃,! Η∃)03∃&2! Β#−&! ∗∃∗! Η+,≅)∋%%!
∃,&∋,∗!4Α!∃,0/3∗∃,≅!the word “sex” in Title VII?!
8!−−#,+1%+#215& Θ+−,)+>+21%+#2Ρ! ∀#∋! 0+3)&! )∋Ξ∋0&∋∗! ∋! plaintiffs’ argument that their
∋71/+Α∋)%!∋,≅−≅∋∗!∃,!−%%+0∃−&∃+,−/!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,∗+∋%!∋!0+3)&!)∋Ξ∋0&!−&!−)≅37∋,&]! Ι%!
∋!0+3)&!∋Σ1/−∃,%! Ο−,∗!−%!∗∃%03%%∋∗! ∃,!0−%∋%!%∋&! (+)!/−&∋)!∃,! ∃%!0#−1&∋)Ρ2!0+3)&%!#−6∋!−00∋1&∋∗!
%30#!0/−∃7%!∃,!∋!0+,&∋Σ&!+(!)−0∋!
≅∋+Λ7∃Α∗Τ∗
!
ϑ+)∃2!−!Β#∃&∋!(∋7−/∋!%−/∋%!−%%+0∃−&∋!−&!Φ+.∆−)&2!#−∗!)∋0∋∃6∋∗!≅/+Β∃,≅!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∋6−/3−&∃+,%!(+)!
∋!%∃Σ!Α∋−)%!%#∋!#−∗!Β+)Χ∋∗!(+)!∋!0+71−,ΑΨ∋)!%31∋)6∃%+)%!)+3≅#+3&!∋!Α∋−)%!#−∗!+(&∋,!&+/∗!
ϑ+)∃!−&!%#∋!Β−%! ∗∋%&∃,∋∗!(+)!7−,−≅∋7∋,& Κ,!Α∋−)!%∋6∋,!+(! #∋)!∋71/+Α7∋,&2!ϑ+)∃!4∋≅−,!∗−&∃,≅!
∆−)Χ!Γ+#,%+,2! −!4/−0Χ! 7−/∋2!Β#+! 6∃%∃&∋∗!#∋)! +,∋!∗−Α! −&!Β+)Χ Several of Lori’s coworkers saw
∆−)Χ!−,∗!ϑ+)∃!Χ∃%%!∗3)∃,≅!#∃%!6∃%∃&2!−,∗!∃,(+)7∋∗!7−,−≅∋7∋,&Φ+.∆−)&!7−,−≅∋)%!∗∋0∃∗∋∗!&+!%∋&!
up an “intervention” whereby they cornered Lori in the break room and told h∋)!−&!Β#∃/∋!%#∋!#−∗!
real promise, her “particular type of relationship” would hurt her chances to become a manager.
ϑ+)∃!)∋%1+,∗∋∗!−&!#∋)!1∋)%+,−/!43%∃,∋%%!Β−%!#∋)!+Β,!−,∗!#∋)!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1!∗∃∗!,+&!−((∋0&!#∋)!Ξ+4!
1∋)(+)7−,0∋#−6+0!(+)!ϑ+)∃−,∗!
%#∋!Β−%!Β)∃&&∋,!31!(+)!%7−//!7−&&∋)%2!%30#!−%!,+&!(−%&∋,∃,≅!∋!&+1!43&&+,!+,!#∋)!%7+0Χ!∗∋%1∃&∋!∋!
−4%∋,0∋! +(! −,Α! %30#! (+)7−/! )3/∋! ∃,! Φ+.Mart’s policy manual. Ι!Β∋∋Χ! /−&∋)2! Φ+.Mart’s store
7−,−≅∋)!(∃)∋∗!#∋)!−//∋≅∋∗/Α!(+)!4∋∃,≅!∃71+/∃&∋!&+!03%&+7∋)%−%+,!(+)!
#∋)!∗∃%0#−)≅∋!Β−%!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∋)!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1!Β∃!∆−)Χ
!
!
!
∀%!
!
ϑ+)∃!4)∃,≅%!−!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!)−0∋! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0/−∃7!−≅−∃,%&!Φ+.∆−)&0+71−,Α!∗∋(∋,∗%!
against Lori’s claim 4Α!−)≅3∃,≅!−&!∃&!∗∃∗!,+&!(∃)∋!ϑ+)∃!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∋)!)−0∋ς!∃&!∗∃∗!%+!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∋)!
)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1Lori’s claim under Title VII. !
Ι%%37∋!−&!∃,%&∋−∗!+(!∗−&∃,≅!∆−)Χ2!ϑ+)∃!Β−%!∗−&∃,≅!∀#∋)∋%−2!−,∗!∋!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1!Α∃∋/∗∋∗!
∋!%−7∋!)∋%1+,%∋!()+7!Lori’s!∋71/+Α∋)%+(!∆∃#&,6(∀2!Β+3/∗!∋!+3&0+7∋!∗∃((∋)]θ!Μ#+3/∗!
∃&]!Ε#−&! ∃(!∃,%&∋−∗! +(!)−0∋! +)!%∋Σ2! )∋/∃≅∃+,!Β−%! ∋!∃%%3∋]! Ι%%37∋!−&! ϑ+)∃2!#∋)! 0+.Β+)Χ∋)%!−,∗!
7−,−≅∋)%!−)∋![1∃%0+1−/∃−,%!−,∗!(∋∋/!%&)+,≅/Α!−&![1∃%0+1−/∃−,%!%#+3/∗!∗−&∋!∋∃)!+Β,!Χ∃,∗
∃%!Γ∋Β∃%#
!
;7& “Discrimination Because of Sex”&
!
! ∀Β+!Μ31)∋7∋! Η+3)&! ∗∋0∃%∃+,%2! ≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃∗ =Μ∗ Κ+3Ε(,∀2! Νχ9! Τ 88γ! Ο:χγχΡ! −,∗!
Η,4&7∃∗ =Μ∗ #−,)+ϑ,∃∋∗ ΗΓΓ∀5+∋∃∗ #∃∋=(4∃∀2! 8_! Τ
∋Σ1−,∗∋∗! ∋! %0+1∋! of Title VII’s pro#∃4∃&∃+,! +(! “discrimination because of sex.” ∀#∋Α!
3,∗+34&∋∗/Α!#−6∋!#−∗!−!1)+(+3,∗!∋((∋0&!+,!∋!Β−Α!0+3)&%!#−6∋! #−,∗/∋∗!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!0/−∃7%!4)+3≅#&!
4Α! ϑΦΠ∀! ∋71/+Α∋∋%! −//∋≅∃,≅! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! ∋∃)! %∋Σ2! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,2! ≅∋,∗∋)!
∃∗∋,&∃&Α!+)!≅∋,∗∋)!∋Σ1)∋%%∃+,
) ) 5+)) 6∀%7∀8)92%−2%.28:∋&;)
! ∀#∋!0+3)&!∃,!∆∃#&,6(∀!)∋Ξ∋0&∋∗!∋!−)≅37∋,&!4Α!+,∋!+(!∋!1/−∃,&∃((%!−&!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!#−∗!4∋∋,!
6∃+/−&∋∗!Β#∋,!#∃%!∋71/+Α∋)!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!#∃7!4−%∋∗!+,!#∃%!∋((∋7∃,−0Α
court “effeminacy, like discrimination because of homosexuality! +)!&)−,%%∋Σ3−/∃%7!
,+&!(−//!Β∃&hin the purview of Title VII.” Revisit the court’s holding in that regard after reading the
(+//+Β∃,≅!0−%∋
! !
!
!
!
∀&!
!
,8∋−∀)(∀)∗+)?%%)≅+)Α2ΒΧ∋%()
ΤΜΓ&Υ797&ΙΙΗ&ΛΝΜΗΜΟ7&
!
Χ?+2+#2&
Γ3%&∃0∋! Πη[55Ι5! −,,+3,0∋∗! ∋! Ξ3∗≅7∋,&! +(! ∋! Η+3)&! −,∗! ∗∋/∃6∋)∋∗! −,! +1∃,∃+,2! ∃,! Β#∃0#!
Γ3%&∃0∋!∆ΙηΜΨΙϑϑ2!Γ3%&∃0∋!ΠϑΙΗφ∆Τ52!−,∗!Γ3%&∃0∋!Μ∀[=[5Μ!Ξ+∃,
!
Ι,,!Ψ+1Χ∃,%!Β−%!−!%∋,∃+)!7−,−≅∋)!∃,!−,!+((∃0∋!+(! Λ)∃0∋!Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!Β#∋,!%#∋! Β−%!1)+1+%∋∗!(+)!
1−)&,∋)%#∃1!∃,!:χγ8
0−,∗∃∗−0Α!Β−%!#∋/∗! (+)!)∋0+,%∃∗∋)−&∃+,! ∋!(+//+Β∃,≅! Α∋−) ∋!1−)&,∋)%! ∃,!#∋)! +((∃0∋!/−&∋)!
)∋(3%∋∗!&+!)∋1)+1+%∋! #∋)!(+)! 1−)&,∋)%#∃12!%#∋! %3∋∗!Λ)∃0∋! Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!3,∗∋)! ∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!+(!∋!Η∃6∃/!
η∃≅#&%!Ι0&!+(! :χαΝ2!;γ! Μ&−&!−%!−7∋,∗∋∗2!Ν8!Τ ∃6∗∀∃ΥΜ/!0#−)≅∃,≅!−&! ∋!(∃)7!
#−∗! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗! −≅−∃,%&! #∋)! +,! ∋! 4−%∃%! +(!%∋Σ! ∃,! ∃&%! ∗∋0∃%∃+,%! )∋≅−)∗∃,≅! 1−)&,∋)%#∃1
Φ∋%∋//!∃,!∋!⊥∋∗∋)−/!δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!(+)!∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!+(!Η+/374∃−!)3/∋∗!∃,!#∋)!(−6+)!+,!∋!ι3∋%&∃+,!
+(!/∃−4∃/∃&Α2!α:γ!⊥Μ311−,∗!∋!Η+3)&!+(!Ι11∋−/%!(+)!∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!+(!Η+/374∃−!Η∃)03∃&!
−((∃)7∋∗
−7+,≅! ∋! Η+3)&%! +(! Ι11∋−/%! 0+,0∋),∃,≅! ∋! )∋%1∋0&∃6∋! 43)∗∋,%! +(! 1)++(! +(! −! ∗∋(∋,∗−,&! −,∗!
1/−∃,&∃((!∃,! −!%3∃&! 3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ! Β#∋,!∃&! #−%!4∋∋,!%#+Β,! −&!−,! ∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∋0∃%∃+,! )∋%3/&∋∗!
()+7!−!7∃Σ&3)∋!+(! /∋≅∃&∃7−&∋!−,∗!∃//∋≅∃&∃7−&∋!7+&∃6∋%:9γ!Μχχ!ϑ
8αγ!Ο:χγγΡ
!!
!
0&
Ι&!Λ)∃0∋!Ε−&∋)#+3%∋2!−!,−&∃+,Β∃∗∋!1)+(∋%%∃+,−/!−00+3,&∃,≅!1−)&,∋)%#∃12!−!%∋,∃+)!7−,−≅∋)!4∋0+7∋%!
−!0−,∗∃∗−&∋!(+)!1−)&,∋)%#∃1!Β#∋,!∋!1−)&,∋)%!∃,!#∋)!/+0−/! +((∃0∋!%347∃&!#∋)!,−7∋!−%!−! 0−,∗∃∗−&∋
Ι//! +(! ∋! +∋)! 1−)&,∋)%! ∃,! ∋! (∃)7! −)∋! ∋,! ∃,6∃&∋∗! &+! %347∃&! Β)∃&&∋,! 0+77∋,&%! +,! ∋−0#!
0−,∗∃∗−&∋—either on a “long” or a “short” form, depending on the partner’s degree of exposure to
∋!0−,∗∃∗−&∋5+&!∋6∋)Α!1−)&,∋)!∃,!∋!(∃)7!%347∃&%!0+77∋,&%!+,!∋6∋)Α!0−,∗∃∗−&∋6∃∋Β∃,≅!
∋! 0+77∋,&%! −,∗! ∃,&∋)6∃∋Β∃,≅! ∋! 1−)&,∋)%! who submitted them, the firm’s Admissions
Η+77∃&&∋∋!7−Χ∋%!−!)∋0+77∋,∗−&∃+,!&+!∋!Λ+/∃0Α!Π+−)∗Β∃//!4∋!∋∃∋)!−&!
the firm accept the candidate for partnership, put her application on “hold,” or deny her the
1)+7+&∃+,!+3&)∃≅#&licy Board then decides whether to submit the candidate’s name to the
entire partnership for a vote, to “hold” her candidacy, or to reject her. The recommendation of the
Ι∗7∃%%∃+,%! Η+77∃&&∋∋2! −,∗! ∋! ∗∋0∃%∃+,! +(! ∋! Λ+/∃0Α! Π+−)∗2! −)∋! ,+&! 0+,&)+//∋∗! 4Α! (∃Σ∋∗!
guidelines: a certain number of positive comments from partners will not guarantee a candidate’s
−∗7∃%%∃+,!&+!∋!1−)&,∋)%#∃12!,+)!Β∃//!−!%1∋0∃(∃0!ι3−,&∃&Α!+(!,∋≅−&∃6∋!0+77∋,&%!,∋0∋%%−)∃/Α!∗∋(∋−&!
#∋)!−11/∃0−&∃+,
∋!1−)&,∋)%#∃1!∃,!−,Α!≅∃6∋,!Α∋−)
!!
Ann Hopkins had worked at Price Waterhouse’s Office of Government Services in Washington,
δ Α∋−)%!Β#∋,! ∋!1−)&,∋)%! ∃,!−&! +((∃0∋!1)+1+%∋∗! #∋)!−%! −!0−,∗∃∗−&∋!(+)!1−)&,∋)%#∃1
!
!
!
∀ϑ!
!
β(! ∋! αα8! 1−)&,∋)%! −&! ∋! (∃)7! −&! −&! &∃7∋2! ;! Β∋)∋! Β+7∋,
1−)&,∋)%#∃1! −&! Α∋−)2! +,/Α! :—Ψ+1Χ∃,%—Β−%! −! Β+7−,
−∗7∃&&∋∗! &+! ∋! 1−)&,∋)%#∃12! 8:! Β∋)∋! )∋Ξ∋0&∋∗2! −,∗! 89—∃,0/3∗∃,≅! Ψ+1Χ∃,%—were “held” for
)∋0+,%∃∗∋)−&∃+,!∋!(+//+Β∃,≅!Α∋−)!∀#∃)&∋∋,!+(!∋!_8! 1−)&,∋)%!Β#+!#−∗!%347∃&&∋∗! 0+77∋,&%!+,!
Ψ+1Χ∃,%!%311+)&∋∗! #∋)! 4∃∗! (+)! 1−)&,∋)%#∃1 ∀#)∋∋! 1−)&,∋)%! )∋0+77∋,∗∋∗! −&! #∋)!0−,∗∃∗−0Α!4∋!
1/−0∋∗! +,! #+/∗2! ∋∃≅#&! %&−&∋∗! −&! ∋Α! ∗∃∗! ,+&! #−6∋! −,! ∃,(+)7∋∗! +1∃,∃+,! −4+3&! #∋)2! −,∗! ∋∃≅#&!
)∋0+77∋,∗∋∗!−&!%#∋!4∋!∗∋,∃∋∗!1−)&,∋)%#∃1
!!
In a jointl y prepared statement supporting her candidacy, the partners in Hopkins’ office
%#+Β0−%∋∗!#∋)! %300∋%%(3/!8–Α∋−)! ∋((+)&!&+! %∋03)∋!−! ρ8!7∃//∃+,!0+,&)−0&! Β∃!&#∋!δ∋1−)&7∋,&!+(!
State, labeling it “an outstanding performance” and one that Hopkins carried out “virtually at the
partner level.” Plaintiff’s Exh. 15. Despite Price Waterhouse’s attempt at trial to minimize her
0+,&)∃43&∃+,!&+!∃%! 1)+Ξ∋0&2!Γ3∗≅∋! Φ∋%∋/l specifically found that Hopkins had “played a key role
in Price Waterhouse’s successful effort to win a multi.7∃//∃+,!∗+//−)!0+,&)−0&!Β∃!∋!δ∋1−)&7∋,&!
of State.” 618 F.!Supp., at 1112. Indeed, he went on, “[n]one of the other partnership candidates at!
Λ)∃0∋! Ε−&∋)#+3%∋! −&! Α∋−)! #−∗! −! 0+71−)−4/∋! )∋0+)∗! ∃,! &∋)7%! +(! %300∋%%(3//Α!%∋03)∃, ≅!7−Ξ+)!
contracts for the partnership.” !Λ()Μ∗
!!
The partners in Hopkins’ office praised her character as well as her accomplishments, describing
#∋)!∃,! ∋∃)! Ξ+∃,&! %&−&∋7∋,t as “an outstanding professional” who had a “deft touch,” a “strong
character, independence and integrity.” Plaintiff’s Exh. 15. Clients appear to have agreed with
these assessments. At trial, one official from the State Department described her as “extre7∋/Α!
competent, intelligent,” “strong and forthright, very productive, energetic and creative.” Tr. 150.
Ι,+∋)!#∃≅#.ranking official praised Hopkins’ decisiveness, broadmindedness, and “intellectual
clarity”; she was, in his words, “a stimulating conversationalist.” !)Μ/!−&!:α–:;[6−/3−&∃+,%!%30#!
as these led Judge Gesell to conclude that Hopkins “had no difficulty dealing with clients and her
clients appear to have been very pleased with her work” and that she “was generally viewed as a
#∃≅#/Α!0+71∋&∋,&!1)+Ξ∋0&!/∋−∗∋)!Β#+!Β+)Χ∋∗!/+,≅!#+3)%2!13%#∋∗!6∃≅+)+3%/Α!&+!7∋∋&!∗∋−∗/∃,∋%!−,∗!
demanded much from the multidisciplinary staffs with which she worked.” 618 ⊥–
:::_
!!
On too many occasions, however, Hopkins’ aggressiveness apparently spilled over into
abrasiveness. Staff members seem to have borne the brunt of Hopkins’ brusqueness. Long before
#∋)!4∃∗!(+)! 1−)&,∋)%#∃12!1−)&,∋)%!∋6−/3−&∃,≅!#∋)! Β+)Χ!#−∗! 0+3,%∋/∋∗!#∋)! &+!∃7 1)+6∋!#∋)!)∋/−&∃+,%!
with staff members. Although later evaluations indicate an improvement, Hopkins’ perceived
%#+)&0+7∃,≅%!∃,!∃%!∃71+)&−,&!−)∋−!∋6∋,&3−//Α!∗++7∋∗!#∋)!4∃∗!(+)!1−)&,∋)%#∃1
partners’ negative remarks about Hopkins—∋6∋,!+%∋!+(!1−)&,∋)%!%311+)&∃,≅!#∋)—#−∗!&+!∗+!Β∃!
her “interpersonal skills.” Both “[s]upporters and opponents of her candidacy,” stressed Judge
Gesell, “indicated that she was sometimes overly aggressive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with
−,∗!∃71−&∃∋,&!with staff.” !)Μ/!−&!:::_
!!
There were clear signs, though, that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkins’
personality because she was a woman. One partner described her as “macho” (Defendant’s Exh.
30); another suggested that she “overcompensated for being a woman” (Defendant’s Exh. 31); a
third advised her to take “a course at charm school” (Defendant’s Exh. 27). Several partners
!
!
!
∀Ν!
!
0)∃&∃0∃Ζ∋∗!#∋)!3%∋! +(!1)+(−,∃&Ας!∃,!)∋%1+,%∋2!+,∋! 1−)&,∋)!%3≅≅∋%&∋∗! −&!+%∋!1−)&,∋)%!+4Ξ∋0&∋∗!&+!
#∋)!%Β∋−)∃,≅!+,/y “because it’s a lady using foul language.” Tr. 321. Another supporter explained
that Hopkins “ha[d] matured from a tough.&−/Χ∃,≅!%+7∋Β#−&! 7−%03/∃,∋! #−)∗.,+%∋∗! 7≅)! &+! −,!
authoritative, formidable, but much more appealing lady ptr candidate.” Defendant’s EΣ#
∃&! Β−%! ∋! 7−,! Β#+2! −%! Γ3∗≅∋! Φ∋%∋//! (+3,∗2! 4+)∋! )∋%1+,%∃4∃/∃&Α!(+)! ∋Σ1/−∃,∃,≅! &+! Ψ+1Χ∃,%! ∋!
reasons for the Policy Board’s decision to place her candidacy on hold who delivered the 4+−3∗)∃∗
?∋&4∃1!∃,!+)∗∋)!&+! ∃71)+6∋!#∋)! 0#−,0∋%!(+)! 1−)&,∋)%#∃12! ∀#+7−%!Π∋Α∋)! −∗6∃%∋∗2!Ψ+1Χ∃,%! %#+3/∗!
“walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make.312!#−6∋!#∋)!#−∃)!
styled, and wear jewelry.” 618 ⊥
!!
δ)1%Α0#+/+≅∃%&!−,∗!Ι%%+0∃−&∋!Λ)+(∋%%+)!+(!Λ%Α0#+/+≅Α!−&!Η−),∋≅∃∋–∆∋//+,!
Τ,∃6∋)%∃&Α2!&∋%&∃(∃∋∗!−&! &)∃−/!−&!∋! 1−)&,∋)%#∃1!%∋/∋0&∃+,!1)+0∋%%!−&!Λ)∃0∋! Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!Β−%!/∃Χ∋/ Α!
∃,(/3∋,0∋∗!4Α!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅&∋%&∃7+,Α!(+03%∋∗!,+&!+,/Α!+,!∋!+6∋)&/Α!%∋Σ.4−%∋∗!0+77∋,&%!
+(!1−)&,∋)%!43&!−/%+!+,!≅∋,∗∋).,∋3&)−/!)∋7−)Χ%2!7−∗∋!4Α!1−)&,∋)%!Β#+!Χ,∋Β!Ψ+1Χ∃,%!+,/Α!%/∃≅#&/Α2!
−&! Β∋)∋! ∃,&∋,%∋/Α! 0)∃&∃0−/! +(! #∋)
“universally disliked” by staff (Defendant’s Exh. 27), and another described her as “consistentl Α!
annoying and irritating” ((Λ()ΜΡς! Α∋&! ∋%∋! Β∋)∋! 1∋+1/∋! Β#+! #−∗! #−∗! 6∋)Α! /∃&&/∋! 0+,&−0&! Β∃!
Hopkins. According to Fiske, Hopkins’ uniqueness (as the only woman in the pool of candidates)
−,∗!∋! %34Ξ∋0&∃6∃&Α!+(!∋! ∋6−/3−&∃+,%! 7−∗∋!∃&! /∃Χ∋/Α! −&!%#−)1/ Α!0)∃&∃0−/! )∋7−)Χ%!%30#!−%! ∋%∋!
Β∋)∋! ∋! 1)+∗30&! +(! %∋Σ! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅—−/+3≅#! ⊥∃%Χ∋! −∗7∃&&∋∗! −&! %#∋! 0+3/∗! ,+&! %−Α! Β∃!
0∋)&−∃,&Α!Β#∋∋)!−,Α!1−)&∃03/−)!0+77∋,&!Β−%!∋!)∋%3/&!+(!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅
+,!−! )∋6∃∋Β!+(!∋! %347∃&&∋∗!0+77∋,&%2!∋Σ1/−∃,∃,≅! −&!∃&!Β−%! 0+77+,/Α! −00∋1&∋∗!1)−0&∃0∋! (+)!
%+0∃−/!1%Α0#+/+≅∃%&%!&+!)∋−0#!∃%!Χ∃,∗!+(!0+,0/3%∃+,!Β∃+3&!#−6∃,≅!7∋&!−,Α!+(!∋!1∋+1/∋!∃,6+/6∋∗!
∃,!∋!∗∋0∃%∃+,7−Χ∃,≅!1)+0∋%%
!!
Κ,!1)∋6∃+3%! Α∋−)%2!+∋)! (∋7−/∋! 0−,∗∃∗−&∋%!(+)! 1−)&,∋)%#∃1! −/%+!#−∗!4∋∋,! ∋6−/3−&∋∗!∃,!%∋Σ.4−%∋∗!
terms. As a general matter, Judge Gesell concluded, “[c]andidates were viewed favorably if
1−)&,∋)%! 4∋/∃∋6∋∗! ∋Α! 7−∃,&−∃,∋∗! ∋∃)! (∋7∃,ο∃,π∃&Α! Β#∃/∋! 4∋0+7∃,≅! ∋((∋0&∃6∋! 1)+(∋%%∃+,−/!
managers”; in this environment, “[t]o be identified as a ‘women’s lib[b]er’ was regarded as [a]
negative comment.” α:γ!⊥ :::;In fact, the judge found that in previous years “[o]ne
1−)&,∋)!)∋1∋−&∋∗/Α! 0+77∋,&∋∗!−&!#∋! 0+3/∗! ,+&!0+,%∃∗∋)! −,Α! Β+7−,!%∋)∃+3%/Α!−%! −!1−)&,∋)%#∃1!
0−,∗∃∗−&∋!−,∗!4∋/∃∋6∋∗!−&!Β+7∋,!Β∋)∋!,+&!∋6∋,!0−1−4/∋!+(!(3,0&∃+,∃,≅!−%!%∋,∃+)!7−,−≅∋)%—Α∋&!
∋!(∃)7!&++Χ!,+!−0&∃+,!&+!∗∃%0+3)−≅∋!#∃%!0+77∋,&%!−,∗!)∋0+)∗∋∗!#∃%!6+&∋!∃,!∋!+6∋)−//!%377−)Α!
of the evaluations.” !Λ()Μ∗
!!
Γ3∗≅∋! Φ∋%∋//! (+3,∗! −&! Λ)∃0∋! Ε−&∋)#+3%∋! /∋≅∃&∃7−&∋/Α! ∋71#−%∃Ζ∋∗! ∃,&∋)1∋)%+,−/! %Χ∃//%! ∃,! ∃&%!
partnership decisions, and also found that the firm had not fabricated its complaints about Hopkins’
∃,&∋)1∋)%+,−/!%Χ∃//%!−%!−!1)∋&∋Σ&!(+)!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+, !0+,0/3∗∋∗2!∋!(∃)7!∗∃∗!,+&!≅∃6∋!
∗∋0∃%∃6∋!∋71#−%∃%! &+!%30#! &)−∃&%!+,/Α!4∋0−3%∋! Ψ+1Χ∃,%!Β−%! −! Β+7−,ς!−/+3≅#! ∋)∋!Β∋)∋! 7−/∋!
0−,∗∃∗−&∋%!Β#+!/−0Χ∋∗!∋%∋!%Χ∃//%!43&!Β#+!Β∋)∋!−∗7∃&&∋∗!&+!1−)&,∋)%#∃12!∋!Ξ3∗≅∋!(+3,∗!−&!∋%∋!
0−,∗∃∗−&∋%!1+%%∋%%∋∗!+∋)2!1+%∃&∃6∋!&)−∃&%!−&!Ψ+1Χ∃,%!/−0Χ∋∗
The judge went on to decide, however, that some of the partners’ remarks about Hopkins stemmed
()+7!−,!∃71∋)7∃%%∃4/Α!0−4∃,∋∗!6∃∋Β!+(!∋!1)+1∋)!4∋#−6∃+)!+(!Β+7∋,2!−,∗!−&!Λ)∃0∋!Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!
#−∗! ∗+,∋! ,+∃,≅! &+! ∗∃%−6+Β! )∋/∃−,0∋! +,! %30#! 0+77∋,&%
3,/−Β(3//Α!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!Ψ+1Χ∃,%!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ!4Α!0+,%0∃+3%/Α!≅∃6∃,≅!0)∋∗∋,0∋!−,∗!
!
!
!
∀Ο!
!
effect to partners’ comments that resulted from sex stereotyping. Noting that Price Waterhouse
0+3/∗!−6+∃∗!∋ι3∃&−4/∋!)∋/∃∋(!4Α!1)+6∃,≅!4Α!0/∋−)!−,∗!0+,6∃,0∃,≅!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!−&!∃&!Β+3/∗!#−6∋!1/−0∋∗!
Hopkins’ candidacy on hold even absent this discrimination, the judge decided that the firm had
,+&!0−))∃∋∗!∃%!#∋−6Α!43)∗∋,
!
!&
Κ,! 1−%%∃,≅! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ2! Η+,≅)∋%%! 7−∗∋! ∋! %∃71/∋! 43&! 7+7∋,&+3%! −,,+3,0∋7∋,&! −&! %∋Σ2! )−0∋2!
)∋/∃≅∃+,2! −,∗! ,−&∃+,−/! +)∃≅∃,! −)∋! ,+&! )∋/∋6−,&! &+! ∋! %∋/∋0&∃+,2! ∋6−/3−&∃+,2! +)! 0+71∋,%−&∃+,! +(!
∋71/+Α∋∋% ∋! %&−&3&∋! ∗+∋%! ,+&! 13)1+)&! &+! /∃7∃&! ∋!+∋)!ι3−/∃&∃∋%! −,∗! 0#−)−0&∋)∃%&∃0%! −&!
∋71/+Α∋)%!Α&.! &−Χ∋! ∃,&+! −00+3,&!∃,! 7−Χ∃,≅! ∋71/+Α7∋,&! ∗∋0∃%∃+,% 0+,6∋)%∋2! ∋)∋(+)∋2! +(!
“for cause” legislation, Title VII eliminates certain bases for distinguishing among employees
while otherwise preserving employers’ freedom of choice. This balance betwe∋,!∋71/+Α∋∋!)∃≅#&%!
−,∗!∋71/+Α∋)!1)∋)+≅−&∃6∋%!&3),%!+3&!&+!4∋!∗∋0∃%∃6∋!∃,!∋!0−%∋!4∋(+)∋!3%
!!
Congress’ intent to forbid employers to take gender into account in making employment decisions
−11∋−)%!+,! ∋! (−0∋!+(!∋! %&−&3&∋ Κ,! ,+Β.(−7∃/∃−)! /−,≅3−≅∋2!∋!%&−&3&∋! (+)4∃∗%! −,! ∋71/+Α∋)!&+!
“fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate with respect to
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” or to “limit, segregate, or
0/−%%∃(Α!#∃%!∋71/+Α∋∋%!+)! −11/∃0−,&%!(+)!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∃,!−,Α!Β−Α!Β#∃0#!Β+3/∗!∗∋1)∃6∋! +)!&∋,∗!&+!
∗∋1)∃6∋!−,Α!∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/!+(!∋71/+Α7∋,&!+11+)&3,∃&∃∋%!+)!+∋)Β∃%∋!−∗6∋)%∋/Α!−((∋0&!#∃%!%&−&3%!−%!−,!
∋71/+Α∋∋2!Λ∃4&−∀∃∗+Γ!such individual’s ... sex.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–8Ο−ΡΟ:Ρ2!Ο8Ρ!Ο∋71#−%∃%!−∗∗∋∗Ρ
Ε∋!&−Χ∋!∋%∋!Β+)∗%!&+!7∋−,!−&!≅∋,∗∋)!73%&!4∋!∃))∋/∋6−,&!&+!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∋0∃%∃+,%
the words “because of” as colloquial shorthand for “but.for causation,” as does Price Waterhouse,
∃%!&+!7∃%3,∗∋)%&−,∗!∋7
!!
…!
.&
Κ,!%−Α∃,≅! −&!≅∋,∗∋)! 1/−Α∋∗! −!7+&∃6−&∃,≅!1−)&! ∃,!−,! ∋71/+Α7∋,&! ∗∋0∃%∃+,2!Β∋! 7∋−,!−&2!∃(! Β∋!
−%Χ∋∗! ∋! ∋71/+Α∋)!−&! ∋! 7+7∋,&! +(! ∋! ∗∋0∃%∃+,! Β#−&! ∃&%! )∋−%+,%! Β∋)∋! −,∗! ∃(! Β∋! )∋0∋∃6∋∗! −!
&)3(3/!)∋%1+,%∋2!+,∋!+(!+%∋!)∋−%+,%!Β+3/∗! 4∋!−&!∋!−11/∃0−,&!+)!∋71/+Α∋∋!Β−%!−!Β+7−,Κ,!
∋!%1∋0∃(∃0!0+,&∋Σ&!+(!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅2!−,!∋71/+Α∋)!Β#+!−0&%!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!−!4∋/∃∋(!−&!−!Β+7−,!
0−,,+&!4∋!−≅≅)∋%%∃6∋2!+)!−&!%#∋!73%&!,+&!4∋2!#−%!−0&∋∗!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!≅∋,∗∋)
!
…!
!
Ι%!&+!∋!∋Σ∃%&∋,0∋!+(!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!∃,!∃%!0−%∋2!Β∋!−)∋!,+&!∃,0/∃,∋∗!&+!ι3−))∋/!Β∃!∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!
Court’s conclusion that a number of the partners’ comments showed sex stereotyping at work. See
(,Γ∋&/!−&!:;χ_–:;χΝ (+)!∋!/∋≅−/!)∋/∋6−,0∋!+(!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅2!Β∋!−)∋!4∋Α+,∗!∋!∗−Α!Β#∋,!
−,!∋71/+Α∋)!0+3/∗!∋6−/3−&∋!∋71/+Α∋∋%!4Α!−%%37∃,≅!+)!∃,%∃%&∃,≅!−&!∋Α!7−&0#∋∗!∋!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋!
associated with their group, for “ ‘[i]n forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals
4∋0−3%∋!+(!∋∃)! %∋Σ2!Η+,≅)∋%%! ∃,&∋,∗∋∗!&+!%&)∃Χ∋!−&!∋! ∋,&∃)∋!%1∋0&)37! +(!∗∃%1−)−&∋!&)∋−&7∋,&!+(!
!
!
!
∀Μ!
!
men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.’ ” 8+∀∗2,?∃7∃∀∗ ∆∃36Μ∗ +Γ∗ Ι&6∃∋∗ &,)∗ ≅+ϑ∃∋∗ =Μ∗
%&,5&∋6/!Ν_! Τ ;9;2!, :_2!χγ! Μ :_;2!, :_2!!ϑα;!Ο:χ;γΡ2! ι3+&∃,≅!
#3∋+?(∀∗=Μ∗ς,(6∃)∗2(∋∗8(,∃∀/∗!,4Μ/!ΝΝΝ!⊥<8∗!::χΝ2!::χγ! ΟΗΙ;!:χ;:Ρ+4Ξ∋0&%!&+!
−≅≅)∋%%∃6∋,∋%%!∃,!Β+7∋,!43&!Β#+%∋!1+%∃&∃+,%!)∋ι3∃)∋!∃%!&)−∃&!1/−0∋%!Β+7∋,!∃,!−,!∃,&+/∋)−4/∋!−,∗!
∃71∋)7∃%%∃4/∋!0−&0#!88>!+3&!+(!−!Ξ+4!∃(!∋Α!4∋#−6∋!−≅≅)∋%%∃6∋/Α!−,∗!+3&! +(!−!Ξ+4!∃(!∋Α!∗+! ,+&
∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!/∃(&%!Β+7∋,!+3&!+(!∃%!4∃,∗
!!
η∋7−)Χ%!−&!Β+)Χ!−&!−)∋!4−%∋∗! +,!%∋Σ! %&∋)∋+&Α1∋%!∗+! ,+&!∃,∋6∃&−4/Α!1)+6∋!−&! ≅∋,∗∋)!1/−Α∋∗!−!
1−)&!∃,!−!1−)&∃03/−)!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∋0∃%∃+,1/−∃,&∃((!73%&!%#+Β!−&!∋!∋71/+Α∋)!−0&3−//Α!)∋/∃∋∗!
+,!#∋)!≅∋,∗∋)!∃,!7−Χ∃,≅!∃&%! ∗∋0∃%∃+, ∃%!%#+Β∃,≅2!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋∗!)∋7−)Χ%!0−,!0∋)&−∃,/Α!
4∋!∃=()∃,4∃! −&!≅∋,∗∋)! 1/−Α∋∗!−! 1−)&Κ,!−,Α! ∋6∋,&2!∋! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!∃,! ∃%!0−%∋!∗∃∗! ,+&!%∃71/Α!
0+,%∃%&!+(!%&)−Α!)∋7−)Χ% 1)+6∋∗!−&!Λ)∃0∋!Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!∃,6∃&∋∗!1−)&,∋)%!
&+!%347∃&!0+77∋,&%ς!−&!%+7∋!+(!∋!0+77∋,&%!%&∋77∋∗!()+7!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋%ς!−&!−,!∃71+)&−,&!
part of the Policy Board’s decision on Hopkins was an assessment of the submitted comments; and
−&!Λ)∃0∋!Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!∃,!,+!Β−Α!∗∃%0/−∃7∋∗!)∋/∃−,0∋!+,!∋!%∋Σ./∃,Χ∋∗!∋6−/3−&∃+,%
Price Waterhouse suggests, “discrimination in the air”; rather, it is, as Hopkins puts it,
“discrimination brought to ground and visited upon” an employee. Brief for Respondent 30. By
focusing on Hopkins’ specific proof, however, we do n+&!%3≅≅∋%&!−!/∃7∃&−&∃+,!+,!∋!1+%%∃4/∋!Β−Α%!
+(!1)+6∃,≅!−&!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!1/−Α∋∗!−!7+&∃6−&∃,≅!)+/∋!∃,! −,!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∋0∃%∃+,2! −,∗!Β∋!)∋()−∃,!
from deciding here which specific facts, “standing alone,” would or would not establish a
plaintiff’s case, since s30#! −! ∗∋0∃%∃+,! ∃%! 3,,∋0∋%%−)Α! ∃,! ∃%! 0−%∋3+∀6/! −&! :γ9!
(O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment).!
!
!!
!
In finding that some of the partners’ comments reflected sex stereotyping, the District Court relied
in part on Dr. Fiske’s expert testimony. Without directly impugning Dr. Fiske’s credentials or
ι3−/∃(∃0−&∃+,%2! Λ)∃0∋! Ε−&∋)#+3%∋! ∃,%∃,3−&∋%! −&! −! %+0∃−/! 1%Α0#+/+≅∃%&! ∃%! 3,−4/∋! &+! ∃∗∋,&∃(Α! %∋Σ!
%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!∃,!∋6−/3−&∃+,%!Β∃+3&!∃,6∋%&∃≅−&∃,≅!Β#∋∋)!+%∋!∋6−/3−&∃+,%!#−6∋!−!4−%∃%!∃,!)∋−/∃&Α
∀#∃%!−)≅37∋,&!0+7∋%!&++!/−&∋&)∃−/2!0+3,%∋/!(+)!Λ)∃0∋!Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!&Β∃0∋! −%%3)∋∗!∋!0+3)&!−&!
#∋!∗∃∗!,+&! ι3∋%&∃+,!Dr. Fiske’s expertise (App. 25) and failed to challenge the legitimacy of her
∗∃%0∃1/∃,∋∃+3&!0+,&)−∗∃0&∃+,! ()+7! Λ)∃0∋! Ε−&∋)#+3%∋2! ⊥∃%Χ∋! &∋%&∃(∃∋∗! −&! %#∋! ∗∃%0∋),∋∗! %∋Σ!
stereotyping in the partners’ evaluations of Hopkins and she further explained tha &!∃&!Β−%! 1−)&!+(!
#∋)!43%∃,∋%%!&+!∃∗∋,&∃(Α!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!∃,!Β)∃&&∋,!∗+037∋,&%!)Μ/!−&!αΝ,+&!∃,0/∃,∋∗!&+!−00∋1&!
petitioner’s belated and unsubstantiated characterization of Dr. Fiske’s testimony as “gossamer
evidence” (Brief for Petitioner 20) based!only on “intuitive hunches” (()Μ/! −&! ΝΝΡ! −,∗! +(! #∋)!
detection of sex stereotyping as “intuitively divined” (()Μ/!−&!Ν_Ρ
!
Indeed, we are tempted to say that Dr. Fiske’s expert testimony was merely icing on Hopkins’
0−Χ∋&−Χ∋%!,+!%1∋0∃−/!&)−∃,∃,≅!&+!∗∃%0∋),!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!∃,!−!∗∋%0)∃1&∃+,!+(!−,!−≅≅)∋%%∃6∋!(∋7−/∋!
employee as requiring “a course at charm school.” Nor, turning to Thomas Beyer’s memorable
advice to Hopkins, does it require expertise in psychology to know that, if an employee’s flaw∋∗!
“interpersonal skills” can be corrected by a soft.#3∋∗!%3∃&!+)!−!,∋Β!%#−∗∋!+(!/∃1%&∃0Χ2!1∋)#−1%!∃&!∃%!
!
!
!
#Ι!
!
the employee’s sex and not her interpersonal skills that has drawn the criticism!
!!
Λ)∃0∋!Ε−&∋)#+3%∋!−/%+!0#−)≅∋%!−&!Ψ+1Χ∃,%!1)+∗30∋∗!,+!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!−&!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!1/−Α∋∗!−!
)+/∋!∃,!∋!∗∋0∃%∃+,!&+!1/−0∋!#∋)!0−,∗∃∗−0Α!+,!#+/∗#−6∋!%&)∋%%∋∗2!#+Β∋6∋)2!Ψ+1Χ∃,%!%#+Β∋∗!
that the partnership solicited evaluations from all of the firm’s partners; that it generally relied very
#∋−6∃/Α!+,!%30#!∋6−/3−&∃+ns in making its decision; that some of the partners’ comments were the
1)+∗30&! +(! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅ς! −,∗! −&! ∋! (∃)7! ∃,! ,+! Β−Α! ∗∃%0/−∃7∋∗! )∋/∃−,0∋! +,! +%∋! 1−)&∃03/−)!
comments, either in Hopkins’ case or in the past. Certainly a plausible—−,∗2! +,∋!7∃ ≅#&! %−Α2!
∃,∋6∃&−4/∋—0+,0/3%∃+,!&+!∗)−Β!()+7!∃%!%∋&!+(!0∃)037%&−,0∋%!∃%!−&!∋!Λ+/∃0Α!Π+−)∗!∃,!7−Χ∃,≅!
its decision did in fact take into account all of the partners’ comments, including the comments
that were motivated by stereotypical notions about women’s pro1∋)!∗∋1+)&7∋,&
!
!
ο∀#∋! Μ31)∋7∋! Η+3)&! )∋7−,∗∋∗!∋! 0−%∋! %+! −&! ∋! 0+3)&! +(! −11∋−/%! 0+3/∗! )∋∋6−/3−&∋! ∋! 0−%∋!
0+,%∃%&∋,&!Β∃!∋!%&−,∗−)∗!∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!∋%&−4/∃%#∋∗π
!
Χ+6∃∀∗&,)∗Σ−∃∀6(+,∀∗
&
:≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃!Β−%! −! 1/3)−/∃& Α!+1∃,∃+,
separate concurrences) “agreed that [the conduct about which Ι,,! Ψ+1Χ∃,%! 0+71/−∃,∋∗! Β−%π!
∃,∗∃0−&∃6∋!+(!gender discrimination. . . .” 97∃,,∗=Μ∗:∋−ΑΛ.2!αα_!⊥<_ class="fs4 ls1a ws3f v1">!Η∃)ς!
∀∃∃∗&7∀+!Κ(=∃7.∗=Μ∗!=.∗;∃45∗2!γ_!⊥<_ class="fs4 ls1a ws3f v1">!Η∃)∃,∗Λ&,4Ρ!
Ο,+&∃,≅!−&!six justices agreed “that the conduct about which Hopkins complained could support
a finding of sex discrimination for purposes of Title VII”).!“Sex” refers to “−,! ∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/κ%!
−,−&+7∃0−/!−,∗! 4∃+/+≅∃0−/!0#−)−0&∋)∃%&∃0%,” while “gender” refers to “socially.0+,%&)30&∋∗! ,+)7%!
−%%+0∃−&∋∗!Β∃!−!1∋)%+,κ%!%∋Σ.” #∃∃∗#Α(65∗=Μ∗Η5(+2!_;γ!⊥<_ class="_ _1">;_!Οα!Η∃)
Ο0∃&−&∃+,%!+7∃&&∋∗Ρ≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃!#∋/∗!−&!“Title VII 4−))∋∗!,+&!Ξ3%&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!4∋0−3%∋!
+(!4∃+/+≅∃0−/!%∋Σ2!43&!−/%+!≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅—(−∃/∃,≅!&+!−0&!+)!−11∋−)!−00+)∗∃,≅!&+!∋Σ1∋0&−&∃+,%!
defined by gender.” 97∃,,2!αα_!⊥<_ class="_ _1">:_:α13)1+%∋%!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ2!0+3)&%!3%∋!the terms “%∋Σ”!
−,∗!“≅∋,∗∋)”!∃,&∋)0#−,≅∋−4/Α!−,∗!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋∃∋)!4−%∃%!∃%!3,/−Β(3/!3,∗∋)!∋!%&−&3&∋#∃∃∗
Κ(=∃7./!γ_!⊥<_ class="_ _0"> _Ν_!ϕ!,<: class="_ _0"> (“∆−,Α!0+3)&%2!∃,0/3∗∃,≅!∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&2!−11∋−)! &+!#−6∋!3%∋∗!
“sex” and “gender” synonymously.”Ρ
8 δ+∋%! ≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃! +6∋))3/∋! ∆∃#&,6(∀! −&! /∋−%&! &+! ∋! ∋Σ&∋,&! +(! ∋! Ninth Circuit’s
#+/∗∃,≅!−&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−≅−∃,%&!7∋,!4∋0−3%∋!+(!∋∃)!∋((∋7∃,−0Α!∗+∋%!,+&!6∃+/−&∋!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ]!!Κ,!
−!1+%&.≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃!0−%∋2!∋!5∃,!Η∃)03∃&!#∋/∗!−&!∃&!∗+∋%Χ(45+7∀∗=Μ∗2Ω6∃4&∗>∃∀6&−∋&,6∗
Β,6∃∋3∋(∀∃∀/∗!,4Μ2!8α!⊥<_ class="fs4 ls1c ws41 v1">!Η∃)the plaintiff had been derided because “he carried
his tray like a woman,” refused to have sex with a female coworker and was frequently called
sexually derogatory names (e.g., “fucking female whore”). #∃∃∗()
+6∋))3/∋∗!∆∃#&,6(∀!&+!∋!∋Σ&∋,&!−&!0−%∋!0+,(/∃0&∋∗!Β∃! ≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃
Supreme Court’s holding that Title VII is violated when an employer discriminates against a
Β+7−,!(+)!−0&∃,≅!∃,%3((∃0∃∋,&/Α!feminine “−11/∃∋%!Β∃!∋ι3−/!(+)0∋!&+!−!7−,!Β#+!∃%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!
against for acting too feminine.”!#∃∃∗()
!
!
!
#∀!
!
) ) ∆+) #∃:∀Ε#∀Φ)Α∃8∃((:∀%&)
∗Χ<=&Χ∗&Χ∗.!/=&
&
Η,4&7∃∗=Μ∗ #−,)+ϑ,∃∋∗ΗΓΓ∀5+∋∃∗ #∃∋=(4∃∀2!8_!Τ ;!Ο:χχγΡ2! ∃%! ∋!%∋0+,∗! 0−%∋!−&! #−%!
≅)∋−&/Α!∃,(/3∋,0∋∗!∋!∃,&∋)1)∋&−&∃+,!+(!Title VII’s prohibition of “discrimination because of sex”
−,∗!∋! )∃≅#&%! +(!ϑΦΠ∀! ∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/%! 3,∗∋)!∋!%&−&3&∋ Κ,! Η,4&7∃2!∋!Μ31)∋7∋! Η+3)&! )∋%+/6∋∗!−!
0∃)03∃&!%1/∃&!)∋≅−)∗∃,≅! Β#∋∋)!%−7∋.%∋Σ! %∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!Β−%!−0&∃+,−4/∋!3,∗∋)! ∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ !∀#∋!
1/−∃,&∃((!∃,!Η,4&7∃!Β−%!7−/∋!−,∗!Β+)Χ∋∗!−%!−!)+3%&−4+3&!Β∃!−,!−//.7−/∋!0)∋Β
&+!1∋)6−%∃6∋! −,∗! %∋6∋)∋! −43%∋!0−))∃∋∗! +3&! 4Α! 0+Β+)Χ∋)%2! ∃,0/3∗∃,≅!−!%∋Σ3−/! −%%−3/& η∋/Α∃,≅! +,!
0∃)03∃&!1)∋0∋∗∋,&2!∋!∗∃%&)∃0&!0+3)&!∗∃%7∃%%∋∗!#∃%!0/−∃7!−,∗!∋!Τ(+)!∋!⊥∃(!
Η∃)03∃&!−((∃)7∋∗
!
! Λ)∃+)!&+!Η,4&7∃2!0+3)&%!−∗∗)∋%%∋∗!∋! ∃%%3∋!+(!%−7∋.%∋Σ!%∋Σ3−/! #−)−%%7∋,&!∃,!+,∋!+(!)∋∋!
Β−Α%∋!⊥∃(!Η∃)03∃&2! Β#∃0#!∗∋0∃∗∋∗! Η,4&7∃2!#∋/∗!−&! %−7∋.%∋Σ!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!
Β−%!,∋6∋)!0+≅,∃Ζ−4/∋!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ
1)+6∋!∋!#−)−%%∋)!Β−%!#+7+%∋Σ3−/!−,∗!%!∋!#−)−%%∃,≅!0+,∗30&!Β−%!7+&∃6−&∋∗!4Α!%∋Σ3−/!∗∋%∃)∋
⊥∃,−//Α2!other courts suggested that such claims were viable as long as the harasser’s conduct was
%∋Σ3−/!∃,!,−&3)∋
!
! ∀#∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!#∋/∗!−&!%−7∋.%∋Σ!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!Β−%!0+≅,∃Ζ−4/∋!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!
as long as the harassment occurred “because of sex.” W)∃&∃,≅!(+)!−!3,−,∃7+3%!Η+3)&2!Γ3%&∃0∋!Μ0−/∃−!
explained that Title VII’s proscription against sex discrimination protects women and men and
“evinces a congressional intent to strike at the entire spectrum of disparat∋!&)∋−&7∋,&!+(!7∋,!−,∗!
women.” !)He acknowledged that “male.+,.7−/∋!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!∃,!∋!Β+)Χ1/−0∋!Β−%!
,+&!∋!1)∃,0∃1−/!∋6∃/!Η+,≅)∋%%!Β−%!0+,0∋),∋∗!Β∃!Β#∋,!∃&!∋,−0ted Title VII.” !)−&!;χ
he continued, “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover )∋−%+,−4/Α!
0+71−)−4/∋!∋6∃/%2!&,)∗(6∗(∀∗−76(Α&6∃7.∗65∃∗3∋+=(∀(+,∀∗+Γ∗+−∋∗7&ϑ∀∗∋&65∃∋∗65&,∗65∃∗3∋(,4(3&7∗4+,4∃∋,∀∗
+Γ∗+−∋∗7∃?(∀7&6+∋∀∗Λ.∗ϑ5(45∗ϑ∃∗&∋∃∗?+=∃∋,∃).” !)
! !
! ∀#∋!Η+3)&!%3≅≅∋%&∋∗!)∋∋!Β−Α%!∃,!Β#∃0#!−!1/−∃,&∃((!−//∋≅∃,≅!%−7∋.%∋Σ!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!
7∃≅#&! %#+Β! ∋! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! Β−%! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! %∋Σ⊥∃)%&2! 0+3)&%! −,∗! Ξ3)∃∋%! 7−Α! ∗)−Β! %30#! −,!
inference where “there [was] credible evidence that the harasser was homosexual.” Second, “a
&)∃∋)!+(!(−0&!7∃≅#&! )∋−%+,−4/Α!(∃,∗!ο%∋Σπ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! (∋7−/∋!6∃0&∃7!∃%! #−)−%%∋∗!∃,!%30#!
%∋Σ.%1∋0∃(∃0! −,∗! ∗∋)+≅−&+)Α! &∋)7%! 4Α! −,+∋)! Β+7−,! −%! &+! 7−Χ∋! ∃&! 0/∋−)! −&! ∋! #−)−%%∋)! ∃%!
7+&∃6−&∋∗!4Α!≅∋,∋)−/!#+%&∃/∃&Α!&+!∋!1)∋%∋,0∋!+(!Β+7∋,!∃,!∋!Βorkplace.” ⊥∃,−//Α2!“ο−π!%−7∋.%∋Σ!
#−)−%%7∋,&!1/−∃,&∃((!7−Α!−/%+2!+(!0+3)%∋2!+((∋)!∗∃)∋0&!0+71−)−&∃6∋!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!−4+3&!#+Β!∋!−//∋≅∋∗!
#−)−%%∋)! &)∋−&∋∗! 7∋74∋)%! +(! 4+! %∋Σ∋%! ∃,! −! 7∃Σ∋∗.sex workplace.” Ι00+)∗∃,≅! &+! ∋! Η+3)&2!
οΒπ#−&∋6∋)!∋6∃∗∋,&∃−)Α!)+3&∋!∋!1/−∃,&∃((!0#++%∋%!&+!(+//+Β2!#∋!+)!%#∋!73%&!−/Β−Α%!1)+6∋!−&!∋!
0+,∗30&!−&!∃%%3∋!constituted “)(∀4∋(Α(,&Ξ6(+,Ψ!... because of ... sex.” !)!
!
!Η,4&7∃! #−%! +(&∋,! 4∋∋,! 0∃&∋∗! (+)! ∋! 1)+1+%∃&∃+,! −&! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ! ∃%! ,+&! /∃7∃&∋∗! &+! −,!
∃,&∋)1)∋&−&∃+,!−,&∃0∃1−&∋∗!4Α!/∋≅∃%/−&+)%!∃,!:χαΝ!Β#∋,!∋!%&−&3&∋!Β−%!∋,−0&∋∗#∃∃∗∃Μ?Μ/∗Κ(=∃7.2!γ_!
⊥<_ class="_ _1">_Ν!(“∀#∋!Η+3)&!ο∃,!Η,4&7∃π!0+3/∗!,+&!#−6∋!4∋∋,!0/∋−)∋)>!∋!(−0&!−&!∋!∋,−0&∃,≅!Η+,≅)∋%%!
!
!
!
##!
!
7−Α! ,+&! #−6∋! −,&∃0∃1−&∋∗! −! 1−)&∃03/−)! −11/∃0−&∃+,! +(! ∋! /−Β! 0−,,+&! %&−,∗! ∃,! ∋! Β−Α! +(! ∋!
1)+6∃%∃+,%!+(!∋!/−Β!−&!−)∋!+,!∋!4++Χ%,∋∃∋)!#∋)∋!,+)!∋)∋!−&!∋!Η+,≅)∋ss”
−&!1)+#∃4∃&∋∗! %∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 3,∗∋)!Title VII “may not have realized or understood the full
scope of the words it chose.”Ρ!
!
! ∆+)∋+6∋)2! Η,4&7∃! #−%! −/%+! 4∋∋,! ∃,%&)37∋,&−/! &+! ϑΦΠ∀! ∋71/+Α∋∋%! −//∋≅∃,≅! %∋Σ!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅
(+)!%#+Β∃,≅!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!∃%!4∋0−3%∋!+(!%∋Σ2!∋!0+3)&%!−&!#−6∋!)∋−0#∋∗!∋!∃%%3∋!#−6∋!“held that
[these] paths are illustrative, not exhaustive.” ΒΒΗ<2!;_:!⊥<_ class="lsf">2!
Ν! ϕ! ,Ο! Η∃)∃,∗Λ&,4 Ρ! Ο0∃&∃,≅! 0−%∋%! ()+7! +∋)! 0∃)03∃&%Ρ
7−&∋)∃−/%! −&! (+//+Β2! ϑΦΠ∀! 1/−∃,&∃((%! −//∋≅∃,≅! %∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2! ∃,0/3∗∃,≅!#−)−%%7∋,&2! #−6∋!
)∋/∃∋∗!+,!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!+(!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!&+!%#+Β!−&!−//∋≅∋∗!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!Β−%!4∋0−3%∋!+(!%∋Σ
!
.7&& 9%()(#%≅?+23&124&9(Β∃15&Χ)+(2%1%+#2&
!Ι,!∃%%3∋!−&!#−%!−)∃%∋,!1+%&.≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃!−&!#−%!−((∋0&∋∗!0/−∃7%!4Α!≅−Α!−,∗!/∋%4∃−,!
∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/%! ∃%! ∗∋&∋)7∃,∃,≅! Β#−&! 0+,%&∃&3&∋%! ∋6∃∗∋,0∋! +(! “%∋Σ! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅” or!“≅∋,∗∋)! ,+,.
0+,(+)7∃,≅!4∋#−6∃+)”!(+)!13)1+%∋%!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ
−00+)∗∃,≅!&+!#∋)!∋71/+Α∋)%2!%#∋!(−∃/∋∗!&+!−0&!−,∗!−11∋−)!∃,!Β−Α%!&Α1∃0−//Α!−%%+0∃−&∋∗!Β∃!∋!Β−Α%!
∃,!Β#∃0#!Β+7∋,!%#+3/∗!−0&!−,∗!−11∋−)∀+!−//∋≅∋!−!6∃−4/∋!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0/−∃72!73%&!−!1/−∃,&∃((!
in Hopkins’s position %#+Β!−&! ∋! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!Β−%! 4−%∋∗! +,!∋! &Α1∋! +(! +4%∋)6−4/∋!≅∋,∗∋)!
,+,.0+,(+)7∃,≅!4∋#−6∃+)!−&!∃%%3∋!∃,! ≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃]!!Κ(! %+2!Β#−&!∗+∋%!−&! 7∋−,!(+)!≅−Α!−,∗!
/∋%4∃−,!∋71/+Α∋∋%]!Ι,,!Ψ+1Χ∃,%!Β−%!,+&!−!/∋%4∃−,2!43&!%#∋!Β−%!0+,%∃∗∋)∋∗!to be “7−0#+” by her
∋71/+Α∋)%−!7−0#+!/∋%4∃−,]!!!
“∆−0#+∃%7”!−%∃∗∋2!%#+3/∗!/∋%4∃−,∃%7!−/+,∋!#−6∋!%3((∃0∋∗!−%!0+,%&∃&3&∃,≅!∋!&Α1∋!+(!≅∋,∗∋)!
,+,.0+,(+)7∃,≅!4∋#−6∃+)!−,!∋71/+Α∋)!∃%!1)+#∃4∃&∋∗!()+7!0+,%∃∗∋)∃,≅!Β#∋,!7−Χ∃,≅!∋71/+Α7∋,&!
∗∋0∃%∃+,%]!#∃∃∗∆−&∋Β!ΕΦ)∋∋,!Γ)<2!#&Α∃Ρ#∃Ο∗&,)∗!ΑΑ−6&Λ7∃∗;∋&(6∀1∗Ι5.∗ΗΛ∃∋?∃Γ∃77∗=Μ∗Κ+)?∃∀∗
<7∃&∋∀∗&∗≅&65∗6+∗≅∋+6∃46(,?∗9&.∗&,)∗8∃∀Λ(&,∗ΒΑ37+.∃∃∀∗0∋+Α∗Ι+∋Ε37&4∃∗∆(∀4∋(Α(,&6(+,∗ς,)∃∋∗
;(67∃∗ Φ!!2! 89! Γ(noting that “n37∋)+3%! %0#+/−)%! #−6∋!
)∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗! −&! +,∋! +(! ∋! 1)∃7∋! 7+&∃6−&∃+,%! (+)! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! −≅−∃,%&! ≅−Α%! −,∗! /∋%4∃−,%! ∃%!
discomfort with the manner in which homosexuality departs from traditional gender roles . . .”Ρς!
∀∃∃∗&7∀+!Π)∃−,!Μ+30∋Χ2!≅∃∋4∃(=∃)∗Κ+Α+∀∃Ο−&7∀2!α_!Ι7 Ο89:ΝΡ!(“⊥+//+Β∃,≅!
≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃! &+! ∃&%! /+≅∃0−/! 0+,0/3%∃+,! Β+3/∗! −11∋−)! &+! )∋ι3∃)∋! −&! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,! 4∋!
4)+3≅#&2!−/+,≅!Β∃!∋!)∋%&!+(!∋!%1∋0&)37!+(!≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋%2!3,∗∋)!&#∋!1)+&∋0&∃6∋!374)∋//−!
of Title VII.”).!
∀#∋! 0−%∋! %∋&! (+)! ∃77∋∗∃−&∋/Α! 4∋/+Β! −,∗! ∋! ∋Σ1/−,−&+)Α! 7−&∋)∃−/! −&! (+//+Β! −∗∗)∋%%!
∋%∋! ∃%%3∋%
∋71/+Α∋∋%!Β#+!−//∋≅∋! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!4∋0−3%∋! +(!∋∃)! ≅∋,∗∋)!,+,.0+,(+)7∃&Α! −,∗!Β#+! −)∋!ϑΦΠ!
+)!−)∋!1∋)0∋∃6∋∗!&+!4∋
!
!
!
!
!
#∃!
!
≅8∋∃%)!+),82Γ∀0)∗+)(∋%∀(()Η28:(3)4%−+)
ςΚΜ&87ϑ4&ΙΗς&Λϑ)4&.+)7&ΙΓΓΜΟ7&
Χ60∗0Χ∗&Χ8&
Ψ−)∗∃7−,2!Η∃)03∃&!Γ3∗≅∋
Brian Prowel appeals the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of his former employer,
Ε∃%∋!Π3%∃,∋%%! ⊥+)7%2!Κ,0Λ)+Β∋/!%3∋∗!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ!+(!∋!Η∃6∃/! η∃≅#&%!Ι0&! +(!:χαΝ! −,∗!∋!
Λ∋,,%Α/6−,∃−!Ψ37−,!η∋/−&∃+,%!Ι0&2!−//∋≅∃,≅!−&!Ε∃%∋!#−)−%%∋∗!−,∗!)∋&−/∃−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!#∃7!4∋0−3%∋!
+(!%∋Σ!−,∗!)∋/∃≅∃+,∃%%3∋!+,!−11∋−/!∃%!Β#∋∋)!Λ)+Β∋/!#−%!7−)%#−/∋∗!%3((∃0∃∋,&!(−0&%!
for his claim of “gender stereotyping” discrimination to be submitted to a jury. We also consider
whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to Wise on Prowel’s religious
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0/−∃7
!!
!
7&7&7&&&
007&
Λ)+Β∋/!4∋≅−,!Β+)Χ∃,≅!(+)!Ε∃%∋!∃,!Γ3/Α!:χχ:
∋71/+Α∋∗!−11)+Σ∃7−&∋/Α!:Ν!Β+)Χ∋)%!−&!∃&%! (−0∃/∃&Α!∃,!Π3&/∋)2! Λ∋,,%Α/6−,∃− 3,&∃/!#∃%!
&∋)7∃,−&∃+,2! Λ)+Β∋/! +1∋)−&∋∗! −! 7−0#∃,∋! 0−//∋∗! −! ,−/∋! ∋,0+∗∋)2! Β#∃0#! ∋,0+∗∋%! ,374∋)%! −,∗!
+)≅−,∃Ζ∋%!43%∃,∋%%!(+)7%:_2!899Ν2!−(&∋)!:_!Α∋−)%!Β∃!∋!0+71−,Α2!Ε∃%∋!∃,(+)7∋∗!
Λ)+Β∋/!−&!∃&!Β−%!/−Α∃,≅!#∃7!+((!(+)!/−0Χ!+(!Β+)Χ
!!
!7&
Prowel’s most substantial claim is that Wise harassed and retaliated against him because +(! %∋Σ
The theory of sex discrimination Prowel advances is known as a “gender stereotyping” claim,
Β#∃0#!Β−%!(∃)%&!)∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗!4Α!∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!−%!−!6∃−4/∋!0−3%∋!+(!−0&∃+,!∃,!≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃∗
=Μ∗Κ+3Ε(,∀/!Νχ9!Τ
!!
Λ)+Β∋/!∃∗∋,&∃(∃∋%!#∃7%∋/(!−%!−,!∋((∋7∃,−&∋!7−,!−,∗!4∋/∃∋6∋%!−&!#∃%!7−,,∋)∃%7%!0−3%∋∗! #∃7!,+&!
to “fit in” with the other men at Wise. Prowel described the “genuine stereotypical male” at the
1/−,&!−%!(+//+Β%>!
οΠπ/3∋!Ξ∋−,%2!&.%#∃)&2!4/3∋! 0+//−)!Β+)Χ∋)2!6∋)Α!)+3≅#!−)+3,∗!∋!∋∗≅∋% ∆+%&!+(!
∋!≅3Α%!∋)∋!#3,&∋∗ ∋!≅3Α%!∋)∋!(∃%#∋∗#∋Α!∗)−,Χ2!∋Α!∗)−,Χ!
beer, they didn’t drink gin and tonic. Just you know, all into football, sports, all
−&!Χ∃,∗!+(!%&3((2!∋6∋)Αthing I wasn’t.!
!!
!
!
!
#%!
!
Κ,!%&−)Χ!0+,&)−%&!&+! ∋!+∋)! 7∋,!−&! Ε∃%∋2!Λ)+Β∋/!&∋%&∃(∃∋∗!−&!#∋! #−∗!−! #∃≅#!6+∃0∋! −,∗!∗∃∗! ,+&!
03)%∋ς!Β−%! 6∋)Α!Β∋//.≅)++7∋∗ς! Β+)∋!Β#−&!+∋)%! Β+3/∗!0+,%∃∗∋)! ∗)∋%%Α!0/+∋%ς!Β−%! ,∋−&ς!(∃/∋∗!
#∃%!,−∃/%! ∃,%&∋−∗!+(! )∃11∃,≅! ∋7!+((! Β∃! −!3&∃/∃&Α!Χ,∃(∋ς! 0)+%%∋∗!#∃%! /∋≅%! −,∗!#−∗! −!&∋,∗∋,0Α!&+!
shake his foot “the way a woman would sit”; walked and carried himself in an effeminate manner;
∗)+6∋!−!0/∋−,!0−)ς!#−∗!−!)−∃,4+Β!∗∋0−/!+,!∋!&)3,Χ!+(!#∃%!0−)ς!&−/Χ∋∗!−4+3&!∃,≅%!/∃Χ∋!−)&2!73%∃02!
∃,&∋)∃or design, and decor; and pushed the buttons on the nale encoder with “pizzazz.”!
!!
Some of Prowel’s co.Β+)Χ∋)%!)∋−0&∋∗!,∋≅−&∃6∋/Α!&+!#∃%!∗∋7∋−,+)!−,∗!−11∋−)−,0∋
&Β+!Α∋−)%!+(!#∃%!∋71/+Α7∋,&!−&!Ε∃%∋2!−!(∋7−/∋!0+.Β+)Χ∋)!()∋ι3∋,&/Α!0−//∋∗!Λ)+Βel “Princess.” In
−!%∃7∃/−)!6∋∃,2!0+.workers made comments such as: “Did you see what Rosebud was wearing?”;
“Did you see Rosebud sitting there with his legs crossed, filing his nails?”; and “Look at the way
he walks.” !
!!
Λ)+Β∋/!−/%+!&∋%&∃(∃∋∗!−&!#∋!∃%! #+7+%∋Σ3−/%+7∋!1+∃,&!1)∃+)! &+!5+6∋74∋)!:χχ;2! Λ)+Β∋/!Β−%!
“outed” at work when a newspaper clipping of a “man.%∋∋Χ∃,≅.man” ad was left at his workstation
with a note that read: “Why don’t you give him a call, big boy.” Prowel reported the incident to
&Β+! 7−,−≅∋7∋,&./∋6∋/! 1∋)%+,,∋/! −,∗! −%Χ∋∗! −&! %+7∋∃,≅! 4∋! ∗+,∋
∃∗∋,&∃(∃∋∗2!#+Β∋6∋)
!!
Ι(&∋)!Λ)+Β∋/!Β−%!+3&∋∗2!%+7∋!+(!#∃%!0+.Β+)Χ∋)%!4∋≅−,!0−3%∃,≅!1)+4/∋7%!(+)!#∃72!%34Ξ∋0&∃,≅!#∃7!
&+!6∋)4−/!−,∗! Β)∃&&∋,!−&&−0Χ%! ∗3)∃,≅!∋! /−%&!%∋6∋,! Α∋−)%!+(! #∃%!&∋,3)∋!−&!Ε∃%∋Κ,!−∗∗∃&∃+,!&+! ∋!
nicknames “Princess” and “Rosebud,” a female co.worker called him “fag” and said: “Listen,
faggot, I don’t have to put up with this from you.” Prowel reported this to his shift supervisor but
)∋0∋∃6∋∗!,+!)∋%1+,%∋<!
!!
At some point during the last two years of Prowel’s employment, a pink, light.312! (∋−∋)! &∃−)−!
Β∃!−!1−0Χ−≅∋!+(!/34)∃0−,&!Ξ∋//Α!Β−%!/∋(&!+,!#∃%!,−/∋!∋,0+∗∋)∀#∋!∃&∋7%!Β∋)∋!)∋7+6∋∗!−(&∋)!Λ)+Β∋/!
0+71/−∃,∋∗!&+!Ψ∋,)Α!5+/−,2!∋!%#∃(&!%31∋)6∃%+)!−&!−&!&∃7∋β,!∆−)0#!8Ν2!899Ν2!−%!Λ)+Β∋/!∋,&∋)∋∗!
∋!1/−,&2! #∋! +6∋)#∋−)∗!−!0+.worker state: “I hate him. They should shoot all the fags.” Prowel
)∋1+)&∋∗!∃%!)∋7−)Χ!&+!5+/−,2!Β#+!%−∃∗!#∋!Β+3/∗!/++Χ!∃,&+!∃&/%+!+6∋)#∋−)∗!0+,6∋)%−&∃+,%!
4∋&Β∋∋,!0+.Β+)Χ∋)%2! +,∋!+(! Β#+7! Β−%!−!%31∋)6∃%+)2! Β#+!∗∃%−11)+6∋∗!+(! #+Β!#∋! /∃6∋∗! #∃%!/∃(∋<!
Finally, messages began to appear on the wall of the men’s bathroom, claiming Prowel had AIDS
−,∗!∋,≅−≅∋∗! ∃,! %∋Σ3−/! )∋/−&∃+,%! Β∃! 7−/∋! 0+.Β+)Χ∋)% Ι(&∋)! Λ)+Β∋/! 0+71/−∃,∋∗2! ∋! 0+71−,Α!
)∋1−∃,&∋∗!∋!)∋%&)++7
!!
!
;7&
&
Κ,!−∗∗∃&∃+,!&+!∋!#−)−%%7∋,&!Λ)+Β∋/!−//∋≅∋∗/Α!∋Σ1∋)∃∋,0∋∗!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∃%!%∋Σ2!#∋!−/%+!0/−∃7%!−&!
#∋!Β−%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!4∋0−3%∋!+(!)∋/∃≅∃+,
,+&!0+,(+)7!&+!∋!0+71−,Ακ%!)∋/∃≅∃+3%!4∋/∃∋(%+%∋!)∋/∃≅∃+3%!
beliefs were, Prowel responded: “a man should not lay with another man.”!
!
⊥+)!−!(∋Β!7+,%!∗3)∃,≅!∋! %1)∃,≅!+(!899Ν2! Λ)+Β∋/!(+3,∗!−,+,Α7+3%!1)−Α∋)!,+&∋%!+,! #∃%!Β+)Χ!
7−0#∃,∋!+,!−!∗−∃/Α!4−%∃% −/%+!(+3,∗!7∋%%−≅∋%!∃,∗∃0−&∃,≅!#∋!Β−%!−!%∃,,∋)! (+)!∋!Β− Α!#∋!
!
!
!
#&!
!
lived his life. Additionally, he found a note stating: “Rosebud will burn in hell.” Prowel attributed
∋%∋! ,+&∋%! −,∗! 0+77∋,&%! &+! ∆∃0#−∋/! Η)+Α/∋2! −! Η#)∃%&∃−,! ∋71/+Α∋∋! Β#+! )∋(3%∋∗! &+! %1∋−Χ! &+!
Λ)+Β∋/ Λ)+Β∋/! &∋%&∃(∃∋∗! ∃,!#∃%!∗∋1+%∃&∃+,! −&! ,+∃,≅! Β−%!/∋(&! +,! #∃%! 7−0#∃,∋!−(&∋)!
Η)+Α/∋!/∋(&!∋!0+71−,Α
!
Ι,+∋)!0+.Β+)Χ∋)2!∀#+7−%!Π+Β%∋)2!%&−&∋∗! −&!#∋!∗∃∗!,+&! −11)+6∋!+(!#+Β!Λ)+Β∋/!/∃6∋∗!#∃%!/∃(∋
Prowel testified that Bowser brought religious pamphlets to work that stated “the end is coming”
and “have you come clean with your maker?”!
.7&
Λ)+Β∋/!−//∋≅∋%! −&! #∃%!0+.Β+)Χ∋)%!%#3,,∋∗! #∃7! −,∗!#∃%!Β+)Χ! ∋,6∃)+,7∋,&! 4∋0−7∋!%+!%&)∋%%(3/!
−&!#∋!#−∗!&+! %&+1!#∃%! 0−)!+,!∋!Β−Α!&+! Β+)Χ!&+! 6+7∃&Ι&!%+7∋!1+∃,&!∃,!899Ν2!Λ)+Β∋/!4∋0−7∋!
∃,0)∋−%∃,≅/Α! ∗∃%%−&∃%(∃∋∗! Β∃! #∃%! Β+)Χ! −%%∃≅,7∋,&%! −,∗! 1−Α
1∋)(+)7!7+)∋!6−)∃∋∗!&−%Χ%! −,!+∋)!,−/∋!∋,0+∗∋)!+1∋)−&+)%2!43&!Β−%!,+&!0+71∋,%−&∋∗!(−∃)/Α!(+)!
∋%∋!∋Σ&)−!&−%Χ%2!∋6∋,!+3≅#!Β+)Χ!1∃/∋∗!31!+,!#∃%!,−/∋!∋,0+∗∋)
!!
Κ,!Ι1)∃/! 899Ν2!Λ)+Β∋/! 0+,%∃∗∋)∋∗!%3∃,≅!Ε∃%∋! −,∗!%&−&∋∗!#∃%! ∃,&∋,&∃+,%!&+! (+3)!,+,.7−,−≅∋7∋,&!
1∋)%+,,∋/2!−%Χ∃,≅!∋7!&+!&∋%&∃(Α!+,!#∃%!4∋#−/(&+/∗!#∃%!0+//∋−≅3∋%!−&!∋!/−Β%3∃&!
would be based on harassment for not “fitting in”; he did not say anything about being harassed
4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∃%!#+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α
4+∋)∃,≅!∋7
!!
β,!∆−Α!α2!899Ν2! Φ∋,∋)−/!∆−,−≅∋)!Γ∋((!Μ&)−34!0+,6∋,∋∗!−! 7∋∋&∃,≅!Β∃!Λ)+Β∋/! −,∗!%31∋)6∃%+)%!
Nolan and John Hodak to discuss Prowel’s concern that he was doing more Β+)Χ!(+)!/∋%%!7+,∋Α!
−,!+∋)!,−/∋! ∋,0oder operators. Prowel’s compensation and workload were discussed, but the
1−)&∃∋%!∗∃∗!,+&!)∋−0#! −≅)∋∋7∋,&!+,! +%∋!∃%%3∋% Μ&)−34!∋,! −%Χ∋∗!Λ)+Β∋/! ∃(!#∋!#−∗!−11)+−0#∋∗!
∋71/+Α∋∋%!&+!&∋%&∃(Α!(+)!#∃7!∃,! −!/−Β%3∃&2!−,∗!Λ)+Β∋/!)∋1/∃∋∗!−&!#∋!#−∗!,+&!∗+,∋!%+< !Λ)+Β∋/!#−%!
%∃,0∋!0+,0∋∗∋∗!−&!#∋!∗∃∗!−11)+−0#!+∋)!∋71/+Α∋∋%!∃,!∃%!)∋≅−)∗
β,!δ∋0∋74∋)!:_2!899Ν2! Λ)+Β∋/!Β−%!%377+,∋∗!&+!7∋∋&!Β∃!#∃%!%31∋)6∃%+)%2!Β#+!∃,(+)7∋∗! #∃7!
−&!#∋!Β−%!&∋)7∃,−&∋∗!∋((∋0&∃6∋!∃77∋∗∃−&∋/Α!(+)!/−0Χ!+(!Β+)Χ
!!
!
0007&
Ι(&∋)! ∋Σ#−3%&∃,≅! #∃%! −∗7∃,∃%&)−&∃6∋! )∋7∋∗∃∋%! 4∋(+)∋! ∋! [ι3−/! [71/+Α7∋,&! β11+)&3,∃&Α!
Η+77∃%%∃+,2!Λ)+Β∋/!%3∋∗!Ε∃%∋!∃,!∋!Τ,∃&∋∗!Μ&−&∋%!δ∃%&)∃0&! Η+3)&! (+)! ∋! Ε∋%&∋),! δ∃%&)∃0&! +(!
Λ∋,,%Α/6−,∃−2!−//∋≅∃,≅!0/−∃7%!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!+(!∋!Η∃6∃/!η∃≅#&%!Ι0&!+(!:χαΝ2!Ν8!Τ
∃6∗ ∀∃ΥΜ/! −,∗! ∋! Λ∋,,%Α/6−,∃−!Ψ37−,! η∋/−&∃+,%! Ι0&2! Ν_! Λ− χ:2! ∃6∗ ∀∃ΥΜ! ΟΛΨηΙΡ
Λ)+Β∋/!−//∋≅∋∗! #−)−%%7∋,&! −,∗! Β)+,≅(3/! &∋)7∃,−&∃+,!4∋0−3%∋!+(! %∋Σ ⊥+//+Β∃,≅!∗∃%0+6∋)Α2!
Ε∃%∋!7+6∋∗! (+)!%377−)Α! Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!−,∗!∋! δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!≅)−,&∋∗!∋!company’s motion in its
entirety. As relevant to this appeal, the District Court held that Prowel’s suit was merely a claim
(+)!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,.Β#∃0#!∃%!,+&! 0+≅,∃Ζ−4/∋!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ.−&!#∋! )∋1−0Χ−≅∋∗!
−%! −! ≅∋,∗∋)! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅! 0/−∃7! ∃,! −,! −&&∋71&! &+! −6+∃∗! %377−)Α! Ξ3∗≅7∋,&Λ)+Β∋/κ%! )∋/∃≅∃+3%!
!
!
!
#ϑ!
!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0/−∃7!(−∃/∋∗!(+)!∋!%−7∋!)∋−%+,Λ)+Β∋/κ%!)∋&−/∃−&∃+,!0/−∃72!∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!
#∋/∗!−&!Λ)+Β∋/!#−∗!−!≅++∗!(−∃!4∋/∃∋(!−&!#∋!#−∗!∋,≅−≅∋∗!∃,!1)+&∋0&∋∗!−0&∃6∃&Α!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ2!
43&!−&!#∃%! 4∋/∃∋(!Β−%!,+&! +4Ξ∋0&∃6∋/Α!)∋−%+,−4/∋!≅∃6∋,!−&!#∃%!0+71/−∃,&! Β−%!−0&3−//Α!4−%∋∗! +,!
%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!!
!!
!
0Α7&
In evaluating Wise’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court properly (+03%∋∗!+,!+3)!
∗∋0∃%∃+,!∃,! :(ΛΛ.∗=Μ∗ ≅5(7&)∃735(&∗ !8α9! ⊥<_ class="_ _0"> Ο_∗!Η∃)<899:Ρ2! Β#∋)∋∃,!
we stated: “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Congress has
)∋1∋−&∋∗/Α!)∋Ξ∋0&∋∗!/∋≅∃%/−&∃+,!−&!Β+3/∗!#−6∋!∋Σtended Title VII to cover sexual orientation.” !)Μ!
−&!8α:! Ο0∃&−&∃+,%!+7∃&&∋∗Ρ ∀#∃%!∗+∋%! ,+&!7∋−,2! #+Β∋6∋)2!−&!−!#+7+%∋Σ3−/!∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/! ∃%!4−))∋∗!
()+7!4)∃,≅∃,≅!−! ∀∃Ο∗)(∀4∋(Α(,&6(+,!0/−∃7!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ2!Β#∃0#!1/−∃,/Α!1)+#∃4∃&%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!
“because of sex.” Ν8!Τλ!8999∋.8Ο−Ρ. As the District Court noted, “once a plaintiff shows that
#−)−%%7∋,&!∃%!7+&∃6−&∋∗!4Α!%∋Σ2!∃&!∃%!,+!∗∋(∋,%∋!−&!∃&!7−Α!−/%+!#−6∋!4∋∋,!7+&∃6−&∋∗!4Α!−,&∃.≅−Α!
animus.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 6 (citing :(ΛΛ./! 8α9! ⊥<_>In sum, “[w]hatever the sexual
+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!+(!−!1/−∃,&∃((!4)∃,≅∃,≅!−!%−7∋.%∋Σ!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!0/−∃72!−&!1/−∃,&∃((!∃%!)∋ι3∃)∋∗!&+!
∗∋7+,%&)−&∋!−&!∋!#−)−%%7∋,&!Β−%!∗∃)∋0&∋∗!−&!#∃7!+)!#∋r because of his or her sex.” :(ΛΛ./!8α9!
⊥<_>
!!
Π+!Λ)+Β∋/!−,∗!Ε∃%∋!)∋/Α!#∋−6∃/Α!31+,!:(ΛΛ.Μ!Ε∃%∋!0/−∃7%!∃%!−11∋−/!∃%!∃,∗∃%&∃,≅3∃%#−4/∋!()+7!
:(ΛΛ.! −,∗! ∋)∋(+)∋! Β∋! %#+3/∗! −((∃)7! ∃&%! %377−)Α!Ξ3∗ ≅7∋,&!(+ )! ∋!%−7 ∋! )∋−%+,! Β∋!−((∃)7∋∗!
%377−)Α! Ξ3∗≅7∋,&! ∃,! :(ΛΛ.Μ! Λ)+Β∋/! 0+3,&∋)%! −&! )∋6∋)%−/! ∃%! )∋ι3∃)∋∗! #∋)∋! 4∋0−3%∋! ≅∋,∗∋)!
%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!Β−%!,+&!−&!∃%%3∋!∃,!:(ΛΛ.Μ!Ι%!Β∋!%#−//!∋Σ1/−∃,2!:(ΛΛ.!∗+∋%!,+&!∗∃0&−&∋!∋!)∋%3/&!∃,!∃%!
−11∋−/
Γ+#,!Π∃44Α2!−!#+7+%∋Σ3−/!7−,2!Β−%!−!/+,≅.&∃7∋!∋71/+Α∋∋!+(!∋!Λ#∃/−∗∋/1#∃−!Η+0−!Η+/−!Π+&&/∃,≅!
Η+71−,Α!)Μ! −&! 8χ∋!0+71−,Α! &∋)7∃,−&∋∗!Π∃44Α!−(&∋)! #∋! %+3≅#&!%∃0Χ! /∋−6∋2! 43&!3/&∃7−&∋/Α!
)∋∃,%&−&∋∗!#∃7!)Μ!After Bibby’s reinstatement, he alleg∋∗!−&! #∋!Β−%!−%%−3/&∋∗! −,∗!#−)7∋∗! 4Α!
0+.Β+)Χ∋)%!−,∗!%31∋)6∃%+)%!Β#∋,!#∋!Β−%!%34Ξ∋0&∋∗!&+!0)3∗∋!)∋7−)Χ%!−,∗!∗∋)+≅−&+)Α!%∋Σ3−/!≅)−((∃&∃!
∃,!∋!4−)++7%!)Μ!−&!8α9
!!
Π∃44Α!(∃/∋∗!−!0+71/−∃,&!Β∃!∋!Λ#∃/−∗∋/1#∃−!Η+77∃%%∃+,!+,!Ψ37−,!η∋/−&∃+,%!ΟΛΗΨηΡ2!−//∋≅∃,≅!
%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!)Μ! Ι(&∋)!∋! ΛΗΨη! ∃%%3∋∗!−! )∃≅#&.&+.%3∋!/∋&&∋)2! Π∃44Α!%3∋∗!∃,!
(∋∗∋)−/!0+3)&!−//∋≅∃,≅2!(,6∃∋∗&7(&/!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!∃,!6∃+/−&∃+,!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!)Μ!∀#∋!∗∃%&)∃0&!0+3)&!
≅)−,&∋∗!%377−)Α!Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!(+)! ∋!0+71−,Α!4∋0−3%∋! Bibby was harassed not “because of sex,”
43&!)−∋)!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∃%!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,2!Β#∃0#!∃%!,+&!0+≅,∃Ζ−4/∋!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!)Μ!−&!8α9.α:
!!
β,!−11∋−/2! ∃%! Η+3)&!−((∃)7∋∗2!#+/∗∃,≅! −&! Π∃44Α!1)∋%∋,&∋∗!∃,%3((∃0∃∋,&! ∋6∃∗∋,0∋! &+!%311+)&! −!
0/−∃7!+(!%−7∋.%∋Σ! #−)−%%7∋,&!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ −&!#−)−%%7∋,&!4−%∋∗! +,!
%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!#−%!,+!1/−0∋!∃,! −!Ξ3%&!%+0∃∋&Α2!Β∋!∋Σ1/−∃,∋∗!−&!Η+,≅)∋%%!0#+%∋!,+&!&+!∃,0/3∗∋!
%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!#−)−%%7∋,&!∃,!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!)Μ!−&!8α:2!8α
7−Α.consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in ≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃.)−∃%∋!−! ∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ! ?∃,)∃∋∗
∀6∃∋∃+6.3(,?! 0/−∃72! 1)+6∃∗∋∗! &hey can demonstrate that “the[ir] harasser was acting to 13,∃%#!
!
!
!
#Ν!
!
[their] noncompliance with gender stereotypes.” !)Μ!−&!8αΝς!&44+∋)∗Φ(4Ε∃∋∀∗=Μ∗0&(∋Γ(∃7)∗%∃)Μ∗<6∋Μ/!
Ν_!⊥<_ class="_ _0"> ;;2! ;α8!Οα! Η∃)<899αΡς! Χ(45+7∀∗ =Μ∗2Ω6∃4&∗ >∃∀6Μ∗Β,6∃∋∀Μ/∗!,4Μ/! 8α! ⊥<_ class="_ _0"> γ;Ν! Οχ!
Η∃)<899:Ρς!Κ(??(,∀∗=Μ∗Χ∃ϑ∗:&7&,4∃∗2657∃6(4∗#5+∃/∗!,4Μ/!:χΝ!⊥<_ class="_ _1">882!8χ!Ο:%&!Η∃)<:>
Π∃44Α!∗∃∗!,+&!0/−∃7! ≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅2! #+Β∋6∋)2!#∋! 0+3/∗!,+&! 1)∋6−∃/!+,!−&!∋+)Α−/%+!
concluded, in dicta, that even had we construed Bibby’s claim!&+!∃,6+/6∋! ≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅2!#∋!
∗∃∗!,+&!7−)%#−/!%3((∃0∃∋,&!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!&+!Β∃%&−,∗!%377−)Α!Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!+,!−&!0/−∃7:(ΛΛ./!8α9!⊥<_>
−&!8αΝ.α
!!
In light of the foregoing discussion, we disagree with both parties’ arguments that :(ΛΛ.!∗∃0&−&∋%!
∋!+3&0+7∋!+(!∃%!0−%∋:(ΛΛ.!∗+∋%!,+&!0−))Α!∋!∗−Α!(+)!Ε∃%∋!4∋0−3%∋!∃,!−&!0−%∋2!∋!1/−∃,&∃((!
failed to raise a gender stereotyping claim as Prowel has done here. Contrary to Prowel’s argument,
#+Β∋6∋)2!:(ΛΛ.!does not require that we reverse the District Court’s summary judgment merel y
4∋0−3%∋!Β∋!%&−&∋∗!−&!−!≅∋,∗∋)! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!0/−∃7! ∃%!0+≅,∃Ζ−4/∋! 3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚς!%30#! #−%!4∋∋,!
the case since the Supreme Court’s decision in ≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃Μ! Κ,%&∋−∗2! Β∋! 73%&! 0+,%∃∗∋)!
Β#∋∋)!∋!)∋0+)∗2!Β#∋,!6∃∋Β∋∗!∃,!∋!/∃≅#&! 7+%&!(−6+)−4/∋! &+!Λ)+Β∋/2! 0+,&−∃,%!%3((∃0∃∋,&! (−0&%!
()+7! Β#∃0#! −! )∋−%+,−4/∋! Ξ3)Α! 0+3/∗! 0+,0/3∗∋! −&! #∋! Β−%! #−)−%%∋∗! −,∗?+)! )∋&−/∃−&∋∗! −≅−∃,%&!
“because of sex.”!
!!
ο∀#∋!0+3)&!%∋&!(+)!∋!#+/∗∃,≅!−,∗!)−&∃+,−/∋!+(!≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃
!!
ϑ∃Χ∋! +3)! ∗∋0∃%∃+,! ∃,! :(ΛΛ./!the Supreme Court’s decision in ≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃! 1)+6∃∗∋%! ∋!
−11/∃0−4/∋! /∋≅−/! ()−7∋Β+)Χ2! 43&! ∗+∋%! ,+&! )∋%+/6∋!∃%! 0−%∋≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃.Β#∋)∋!
Ψ+pkins’s sexual orientation was not at issue.#∋)∋!∋)∋!∃%!,+!∗∃%13&∋!−&!Λ)+Β∋/!∃%!#+7+%∋Σ3−/
∀#∋!∗∃((∃03/&!ι3∋%&∃+,2!∋)∋(+)∋2!∃%!Β#∋∋)!∋!#−)−%%7∋,&!#∋!%3((∋)∋∗!−&!Ε∃%∋!Β−%!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∃%!
#+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α2!#∃%!∋((∋7∃,−0Α2!+)!4+
!!
Ι%!∃%!−11∋−/!∗∋7+,%&)−&∋%2!∋!/∃,∋!4∋&Β∋∋,!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−,∗!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!
“because of sex” can be difficult to draw. In granting summary judgment for Wise, the District
Court found that Prowel’s claim fell clearly on one side of the line, holding that Prowel’s sex
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0/−∃7!Β−%!−,!−)&(3//Α.1/∋−∗∋∗!0/−∃7!+(!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,
+3)! −,−/Α%∃%.6∃∋Β∃,≅! ∋! (−0&%! −,∗! ∃,(∋)∋,0∋%! ∃,! (−6+)! +(! Λ)+Β∋/./∋−∗%! 3%! &+! 0+,0/3∗∋! −&! ∋!
)∋0+)∗!∃%!−74∃≅3+3%!+,!∃%!∗∃%1+%∃&∃6∋!ι3∋%&∃+n. Accordingly, Prowel’s gender stereotyping claim
73%&!4∋!%347∃&&∋∗!&+!−!Ξ3)Α
!!
Ε∃%∋!0/−∃7%!∃&!/−∃∗!+((!Λ)+Β∋/!4∋0−3%∋!∋!0+71−,Α!∗∋0∃∗∋∗!&+!)∋∗30∋!∋!,374∋)!+(!,−/∋!∋,0+∗∋)!
+1∋)−&+)%!()+7!)∋∋!&+!&Β+,+&!Β∃+3&!%311+)&!∃,!∋!)∋0+)∗%!/−∃∗!
+((2!,+! +,∋!Β−%! #∃)∋∗! &+!+1∋)−&∋! ∋! ,−/∋!∋,0+∗∋)! ∗3)∃,≅!#∃%!%#∃(& ∆+)∋+6∋)2!7−)Χ∋&!0+,∗∃&∃+,%!
0−3%∋∗!Ε∃%∋! &+! /−Α! +((! ΝΝ! ∋71/+Α∋∋%! −&! ∃&%!Λ∋,,%Α/6−,∃−!(−0∃/∃&Α!4∋&Β∋∋,! 899:! −,∗! Μ∋1&∋74∋)!
2006, and the company’s workforce shrank from 8:8! ∃,!899:!&+! :Ν!∃,! 899γ ∆−,−≅∋)!
Μ&)−34!&∋%&∃(∃∋∗!−&!∃,!∗∋&∋)7∃,∃,≅!Β#∃0#!,−/∋!∋,0+∗∋)!+1∋)−&+)!&+!/−Α!+((2!#∋!0+,%∃∗∋)∋∗!6−)∃+3%!
(−0&+)%2!∃,0/3∗∃,≅! 03%&+7∋)! %∋)6∃0∋2! 1)+∗30&∃6∃&Α2! 0++1∋)−&∃6∋,∋%%2! Β∃//∃,≅,∋%%!&+! 1∋)(+)7! +∋)!
&−%Χ%!Ο∋!()∋ι3∋,0Α!Β∃!Β#∃0#!∋71/+Α∋∋%!0+71/−∃,∋∗!−4+3&!Β+)Χ∃,≅!+,!+∋)!7−0#∃,∋%Ρ2!(3&3)∋!
−∗6−,0∋7∋,&!+11+)&3,∃&∃∋%2!−,∗!0+%&!0+77∋,&%!
+,!#∃%!∗−∃/Α!1)+∗30&∃+,!)∋1+)&%!)∋(/∋0&∋∗!−,! 3,0++1∋)−&∃6∋!−,∗!∃,%34+)∗∃,−&∋! −&&∃&3∗∋ς!#∋! Β−%!∋!
#∃≅#∋%&!1−∃∗!+1∋)−&+)ς! #∋!0+71/−∃,∋∗! Β#∋,!−%Χ∋∗!&+!Β+)Χ!+,! ∗∃((∋)∋,&!7−0#∃,∋%ς!−,∗!#∋!∗∃∗! ,+&!
!
!
!
#Ο!
!
Β+)Χ!&+!∋!4∋%&!+(!#∃%!−4∃/∃&Α!Β#∋,!+1∋)−&∃,≅!∋!+∋)!7−0#∃,∋%
!!
Λ)+Β∋/!−%%∋)&%!−&!∋%∋!)∋−%+,%!Β∋)∋!1)∋&∋Σ&3−/!−,∗!#∋!Β−%!&∋)7∃,−&∋∗!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∃%!0+71/−∃,&%!
&+!7−,−≅∋7∋,&!−4+3&!#−)−%%7∋,&!−,∗!#∃%!∗∃%03%%∃+,%!Β∃!0+.Β+)Χ∋)%!)∋≅−)∗∃,≅!−!1+&∋,&∃−/!/−Β%3∃&!
against the company. In this respect, the record indicates that Prowel’s work compared favorably
&+!∋!+∋)!&Β+!,−/∋!∋,0+∗∋)!+1∋)−&+)%+,!+∋)!∋ι3∃17∋,&!(∃(&Α.(+3)!
&∃7∋%!∗3)∃,≅!∋!/−%&!#−/(!+(! 899Ν!Β#∃/∋!−! 0+.Β+)Χ∋)!∗∃∗!%+!Ξ3%&!+,0∋ς! Λ)+Β∋/!−/%+!)−,! 7+)∋!Ξ+4%!
−,∗!∃71)∋%%∃+,%! 1∋)! #+3)! −,! −&! %−7∋! 0+.worker; and Prowel’s attendance was significantly
4∋&&∋)! −,! ∋! ∃)∗! ,−/∋! ∋,0+∗∋)!+1∋ )−&+)
4∋&Β∋∋,!899:! −,∗!899α2!∃&! /−∃∗! +((!,+!+,∋! ∃,! 899_2!+,/Α! Λ)+Β∋/! ∃,!899Ν2! −,∗! Ξ3%&!&Β+!∃,! 899
Ι/+3≅#!Λ)+Β∋/!∃%!3,−Β−)∋!Β#−&!)+/∋!#∃%!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!1/−Α∋∗!∃,!#∃%!&∋)7∃,−&∃+,2!#∋!−//∋≅∋%!
−&!#∋!Β−%!#−)−%%∋∗!−,∗!)∋&−/∃−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!,+&!4∋0−3%∋!+(!∋!ι3−/∃&Α!+(!#∃%!Β+)Χ2!43&!)−∋)!4∋0−3%∋!
#∋!(−∃/∋∗!&+!0+,(+)7!&+!≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋%
!!
∀#∋! )∋0+)∗! ∗∋7+,%&)−&∋%! −&! Λ)+Β∋/! #−%! −∗∗30∋∗! ∋6∃∗∋,0∋! +(! #−)−%%7∋,&! 4−%∋∗! +,! ≅∋,∗∋)!
%&∋)∋+&Α1∋% −0Χ,+Β/∋∗≅∋∗! −&! #∋! #−%! −! #∃≅#! 6+∃0∋! −,∗! Β−/Χ%!∃,! −,!∋((∋7∃,−&∋!7−,,∋) Κ,!
0+,&)−%&!Β∃!∋!&Α1∃0−/!7−/∋!−&!Ε∃%∋2!Λ)+Β∋/!&∋%&∃(∃∋∗!−&! #∋>!∗∃∗!,+&! 03)%∋!−,∗!Β−%! 6∋)Α!Β∋//.
≅)++7∋∗ς!(∃/∋∗!#∃%!,−∃/%!∃,%&∋−∗!+(!)∃11∃,≅!∋7!+((!Β∃!−!3&∃/∃&Α!Χ,∃(∋ς!0)+%%∋∗!#∃%!/∋≅%!−,∗!#−∗!−!
tendency to shake his foot “the way a woman would sit.” Prowel also discussed things like art,
music, interior design, and decor, and pushed the buttons on his nale encoder with “pizzazz.”
Prowel’s effeminate traits di∗!,+&!≅+!3,,+&∃0∋∗!4Α!#∃%!0+.workers, who commented: “Did you see
what Rosebud was wearing?”; “Did you see Rosebud sitting there with his legs crossed, filing his
nails?”; and “Look at the way he walks.” Finally, a co.Β+)Χ∋)!∗∋1+%∃&∋∗!−!(∋−∋)∋∗2!1∃,Χ!&∃−)−!−&!
Prowel’s workstation. When the aforementioned facts are considered in the light most favorable
&+!Λ)+Β∋/2!∋Α!0+,%&∃&3&∋! %3((∃0∃∋,&!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!+(! ≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!#−)−%%7∋,&.,−7∋/Α2! Λ)+Β∋/!
was harassed because he did not conform to Wise’s vision of!#+Β! −!7−,!%#+3/∗!/++Χ2!%1∋−Χ2!−,∗!
−0&.)−∋)!−,!#−)−%%7∋,&!4−%∋∗!%+/∋/Α!+,!#∃%!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,
!!
∀+!4∋!%3)∋2!∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!0+))∋0&/Α!,+&∋∗!−&!∋!)∋0+)∗!∃%!)∋1/∋&∋!Β∃!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!+(!#−)−%%7∋,&!
motivated by Prowel’s sexual orientation. Thus, it!∃%!1+%%∃4/∋!−&!∋!#−)−%%7∋,&!Λ)+Β∋/!−//∋≅∋%!
Β−%!4∋0−3%∋!+(! #∃%!%∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,2!,+&! #∃%!∋((∋7∃,−0Α 5∋6∋)∋/∋%%2!∃%! ∗+∋%!,+&!6∃&∃−&∋!∋!
1+%%∃4∃/∃&Α!−&!Λ)+Β∋/!Β−%!−/%+! #−)−%%∋∗!(+)!#∃%!(−∃/3)∋!&+!0+,(+)7!&+!≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋%#∃∃!Ν8!
Τ(“[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining
1−)&Α!∗∋7+,%&)−&∋%!−&!<<<<−!7+&∃6−&∃,≅!(−0&+)!(+)!−,Α!∋71/+Α7∋,&!1)−0&∃0∋2!∋6∋,!+3≅#!
other factors also motivated the practice.”). Because both scenarios are 1/−3%∃4/∋2!∋!0−%∋!1)∋%∋,&%!
−!ι3∋%&∃+,!+(!(−0&!(+)!∋!Ξ3)Α!−,∗!∃%!,+&!−11)+1)∃−&∋!(+)!%377−)Α!Ξ3∗≅7∋,&
!!
In support of the District Court’s summary judgment, Wise argues persuasively that every case of
%∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 0−,,+&! &)−,%/−&∋! ∃,&+! −! &)∃−4/∋! 0−%∋! +(! ≅∋,∗∋)! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!
discrimination, which would contradict Congress’s decision not to make sexual orientation
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 0+≅,∃Ζ−4/∋! 3,∗∋)! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ
Λ∃4&−∀∃!Λ)+Β∋/!∃%!#+7+%∋Σ3−/2!#∋!∃%!1)∋0/3∗∋∗!()+7!4)∃,≅∃,≅!−!≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!0/−∃7
∃%!,+!4−%∃%!∃,! ∋!%&−&3&+)Α!+)!0−%∋!/−Β! &+!%311+)&!∋!,+&∃+,!−&!−,!∋((∋7∃,−&∋! 5∃6∃∋+∀∃Ο−&7!7−,!
0−,!4)∃,≅!−!≅∋,∗∋)! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!0/−∃7!Β#∃/∋!−,!∋((∋7∃,−&∋!5+Α+∀∃Ο−&7!7−,!7−Α!,+&!/+,≅!−%!
∋!∋71/+Α∋∋.)∋≅−)∗/∋%%!+(! #∃%!+)!#∋)! %∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,.7−)%#−/%!%3((∃0∃∋,&!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!%30#! −&!−!
!
!
!
#Μ!
!
reasonable jury could conclude that harassment or discrimination occurred “because of sex,” the
0−%∋!∃%! ,+&! −11)+1)∃−&∋!(+)! %377−)Α!Ξ3∗≅7∋,& ∋! )∋−%+,%!Β∋!#−6∋! −)&∃03/−&∋∗2!Λ)+Β∋/!#−%!
−∗∗30∋∗!%3((∃0∃∋,&!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!&+!%347∃&!∃%!0/−∃7!&+!−!Ξ3)Α
!!
=<!
Λ)+Β∋/!−/%+!−)≅3∋%! −&!∋! δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!∋))∋∗!Β#∋,!∃&! ≅)−,&∋∗!Ε∃%∋! %377−)Α!Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!+,!#∃%!
0/−∃7!+(!)∋/∃≅∃+3%!#−)−%%7∋,& ∀+!%3)6∃6∋! %377−)Α!Ξ3∗≅7∋,&! +,!∃%!0/−∃72! Λ)+Β∋/!73%&! %#+Β>!
Ο:Ρ! ∃,&∋,&∃+,−/! #−)−%%7∋,&! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! )∋/∃≅∃+,2! −&! Ο8Ρ! Β−%! %∋6∋)∋! +)! 1∋)6−%∃6∋2! −,∗! Ο_Ρ!
∗∋&)∃7∋,&−//Α!−((∋0&∋∗! #∃72! −,∗! ΟΝΡ!Β+3/∗!∗∋&)∃7∋,&−//Α! −((∋0&! −! )∋−%+,−4/∋! 1∋)%+,!+(! ∋! %−7∋!
)∋/∃≅∃+,!∃,!−&!1+%∃&∃+,2!−,∗!ΟΡ!∋!∋Σ∃%&∋,0∋!+(!)∋%1+,∗∋−&!%31∋)∃+)!/∃−4∃/∃&Α2Λ∋&Α∀+,/!8α9!⊥<_>
−&!8;α.;;
!
β3)! )∋6∃∋Β! +(! ∋! )∋0+)∗! /∋−∗%! &+! ∋! 0+,0/3%∃+,! −&! Λ)+Β∋/! 0−,,+&! %−&∃%(Α! ∋! (∃)%&! ∋%%∋,&∃−/!
∋/∋7∋,&! +(! #∃%! 0−3%∋! +(! −0&∃+,
+,!5(∀!)∋/∃≅∃+3%! 4∋/∃∋(%
&+!Ι(∀∃Ζ∀!)∋/∃≅∃+3%! 4∋/∃∋(%
−≅−∃,%&! ∋7! +,! ∋! 4−%∃%! +(! ∋∃)! )∋/∃≅∃+3%! 4∋/∃∋(%2! 43&! −/%+! ()+7! (+)0∋∗! )∋/∃≅∃+3%!
0+,(+)7∃&ΑΚ&∋∋(∀∗ =Μ∗ 0+∋Ε7(Γ6∗ #.∀Μ/∗ !,4Μ/!:9! Τ
Ο:χχ_Ρς!2Λ∋&Α∀+,/!8α9!⊥<_ class="_ _0">(%!
&+!Β#∃0#! #∋! (−∃/∋∗! &+!0+,(+)72!Prowel could identify just one: “that a man should not lay with
another man.” Likewise, in response to Wise's statement of undisputed material facts, Prowel
admitted: “the only way in which [he] failed to conform to his co.Β+)Χ∋)%κ!)∋/∃≅∃+3%! 4∋/∃∋(%!Β−%!
4Α!virtue of his status as a gay man.” Finally, over a month after Wise moved for summary
judgment, Prowel averred that he suffered religious harassment because: “I am a gay male, which
%&−&3%!%∋6∋)−/!+(!7Α!0+.Β+)Χ∋)%!0+,%∃∗∋)∋∗!&+!4∋!0+,&)−)Α!&+!4∋∃,≅!−!≅++d Christian.”!
!
Prowel's identification of this single “religious” belief leads ineluctably to the conclusion that he
was harassed not “because of religion,” but because of his sexual orientation. Given Congress's
)∋1∋−&∋∗! )∋Ξ∋0&∃+,! +(! /∋≅∃%/−&∃+,! −&! Β+3/∗! #−6∋! ∋Σ&∋,∗∋∗! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ! &+! 0+6∋)! %∋Σ3−/!
+)∃∋,&−&∃+,2!∀∃∃∗:(ΛΛ./!8α9!⊥<_ class="ff6">)∃∗Γ&46+!∃,6∃&−&∃+,!&+!#+/∗!−&!
he was discriminated against “because of religion” merely by virtue of his homosexuality.!
!
Κ,!%311+)&!+(!#∃%!−)≅37∋,&!−&!∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!%#+3/∗!,+&!#−6∋!≅)−,&∋∗!Ε∃%∋!%377−)Α!Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!
+,!#∃%!)∋/∃≅∃+3%!#−)−%%7∋,&!0/−∃72!Λ)+Β∋/!)∋/∃∋%!31+,!Β∋)Α&,,∗=Μ∗;∋&,Υ−(7(6.∗!,4Μ/!:!⊥
::8! Ο5Β∋)Α&,,/!−! #+7+%∋Σ3−/! ∋71/+Α∋∋! 0/−∃7∋∗! )∋/∃≅∃+3%! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!
4∋0−3%∋!#∃%!4+%%!∃,%∃%&∋∗!−&!#∋!4∋0+7∋!#∋&∋)+%∋Σ3−/!)Μ!−&!::α(−0&!−&!
∃&!∃%!,+&!4∃,∗∃,≅!1)∋0∋∗∋,&2!Β∋)Α&,,!0−,,+&!4∋−)!∋!Β∋∃≅#&!Λ)+Β∋/!1/−0∋%!31+,!∃&
[)∗7−,,! ∗∃∗! ,+&! 0/−∃7! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ! )∋/∃≅∃+3%! #−)−%%7∋,&! 4−%∋∗! ∋Σ0/3%∃6∋/Α! 31+,! #∃%! #+7+%∋Σ3−/!
%&−&3%
/∋−∗! ∋! 0+71−,Ακ%! ∗−∃/Α! 1)−Α∋)!% ∋)6∃0∋!)Μ!−&! ::γ
−,−/+≅+3%!)∋/∃≅∃+3%!0+∋)0∃+,
!
Κ,!%372!∋!%−7∋!1)∃,0∃1/∋!−&!)∋ι3∃)∋%!Λ)+Β∋/κ%!≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!0/−∃7!&+!4∋!%347∃&&∋∗!&+!∋!
Ξ3)Α!)∋ι3∃)∋%! −&!#∃%! )∋/∃≅∃+3%!#−)−%%7∋,&!0/−∃7! (−∃/!−&! ∃%! %&−≅∋ ∋Σ1/−∃,∋∗!−4+6∋2! Λ)+Β∋/κ%!
≅∋,∗∋)! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅! 0/−∃7! ∃%! ,+&! /∃7∃&∋∗! &+2! +)! 0+∋Σ&∋,%∃6∋! Β∃! −! 0/−∃7! +(! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,!
!
!
!
∃Ι!
!
#−)−%%7∋,&4−%∃%!+(!∋!#−)−%%7∋,&
Λ)+Β∋/κ%! )∋/∃≅∃+3%! #−)−%%7∋,&! 0/−∃7! ∃%! 4−%∋∗! ∋,&∃)∋/Α! 31+,! #∃%! %&−&3%! −%! −! ≅−Α! 7−,
Λ)+Β∋/κ%! 0/−∃7! Β−%! −! )∋1−0Χ−≅∋∗! 0/−∃7! (+)! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,.Β#∃0#! ∃%! ,+&!
0+≅,∃Ζ−4/∋!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ.Β∋!#+/∗!−&! ∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!∗∃∗!,+&!∋))!∃,!≅)−,&∃,≅!Ε∃%∋!%377−)Α!
Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!+,!−&!0/−∃7
!
!
Α07&
⊥+)!∋!(+)∋≅+∃,≅!)∋−%+,%2!Β∋!Β∃//!6−0−&∋!∋!Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!+(!∋!δ∃%&)∃0&!Η+3)&!
(+)!(3)∋)!1)+0∋∋∗∃,≅%!0+,%∃%&∋,&!Β∃!∃%!+1∃,∃+,
!
Χ+6∃∀∗&,)∗Σ−∃∀6(+,∀∗
!
:9(Β∃15& Χ)+(2%1%+#2& 124& >! [6∋)Α!0∃) 03∃&! 0+3)&!+(! −11∋−/%! −&! #−%! )∋−0#∋∗! ∋!
∃%%3∋2!∋Σ0∋1&!+,∋2!#−%!#∋/∗!−&!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!∗+∋%!,+&!1)+&∋0&!−≅−∃,%&!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,
#∃∃∗Κ(=∃7.∗ =Μ∗!=.Ρ;∃45∗ <2!γ_! ⊥<_ class="_ _0"> __χ2!_Ν:.Ν8! Ο;!Η∃) Ο∃,∗Λ&,4Ρ! Ο0+//∋0&∃,≅!
0−%∋%Ρ0+3)&!∃,!≅∋+ϑ∃7!∃%!∃,!−00+)∗!43&!explains that plaintiffs may “raise a gender %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!
claim” under Title VII “provided they can demonstrate that the[ir] harasser was acting to pun∃%#!
,+,0+71/∃−,0∋! Β∃! ≅∋,∗∋)! %&∋)∋+&Α1∋%<”! Ι00+)∗∃,≅/Α2! ∋! 0+3)&! %&−&∋∗! −&! ∋! ∗∃%1+%∃&∃6∋!
ι3∋%&∃+,!∃%!Β#∋∋)!Λ)+Β∋/!Β−%!#−)−%%∋∗!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∃%!≅∋,∗∋)!,+,0+,(+)7∃&Α2!#∃%!#+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α!
+)!4+ ∀#∋!0+3)&! +1∃,∋∗!−&! ∋!)∋0+)∗! Β−%!3,0/∋−)! +,!+%∋! ∃%%3∋%!−,∗!%! Β−%!(+)! −!Ξ3)Α! &+!
∗∋0∃∗∋the motivations underlying Prowel’s harassers w∋)∋!
3,0/∋−)]!!!!
!
89(Β∃15&Χ)+(2%1%+#2&Ε−7&:(24()&∗#2,#2Π#)>+%≅&Λ9%1%∃−&Ε7&.#24∃,%Ο>! !
≅∋+ϑ∃7!∗∋7+,%&)−&∋%!+,∋!−11)+−0#!0+3)&%!#−6∋!&−Χ∋,!&+!−,−/ΑΖ∋!0/−∃7%!∃,6+/6∃,≅!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!
−&!−)∋!−%%∋)&∋∗!4Α!∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/%! Β#+!−)∋!ϑΦΠ!+)! −)∋!1∋)0∋∃6∋∗!&+!4∋ Κ,!−!,+Β!6−0−&∋∗!+1∃,∃+,2!−!
1−,∋/! +(! ∋! Τthat courts have “Β∃!
/∃7∃&∋∗! %300∋%%2! &)ο∃∋∗π! &+! (∃≅3)∋! +3&! #+Β! &+! ∗)−Β! ∋! /∃,∋! 4∋&Β∋∋,! ≅∋,∗∋)! ,+,0+,(+)7∃&Α!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2!Β#∃0#! 0−,! (+)7!∋! 4−%∃%! +(!−!/∋≅−/! 0/−∃7! 4−%∋∗! +,!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅! −,∗! %∋Σ3−/!
+)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2! Β#∃0#! 0−,,+&#∃∃∗ Κ(=∃7.∗ =Μ∗ !=.Ρ;∃45∗ <2! γ_9! ⊥<_>
=&4&6∃)∗+,∗+65∃∋∗?∋+−,)∀∗Λ.!γ_!⊥<_ class="_ _1">_Να!ϕ!,<8!Ο;!Η∃)∃,∗Λ&,4Ρ
0+3)&%!#−6∋!)∋Ξ∋0&∋∗!0/−∃7%!+(!%∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!∃(!∋Α!4∋/∃∋6∋!−&!∋!−//∋≅−&∃+,%!−&!∃,∗∃0−&∋!
%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+3&Β∋∃≅#!+%∋!−&!∃,∗∃0−&∋!∋!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+003))∋∗!4∋0−3%∋!
+(!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅#∃∃∗∃Μ?Μ/∗<5∋(∀6(&,∀∃,∗ =Μ∗ΗΑ,(4+Α∗9∋+−3/∗ !,4<2!:α;!⊥ Μ311<_>
ΟΜrev’d2!γ8!⊥<_ class="_ _0">!Ο8,∗!Η∃)−)−%%∋)!)∋(∋))∋∗!&+!1/−∃,&∃((!
−%! ∋((∋7∃,−&∋2! ∋! #−)−%%∋)! %#+Β∋∗! 73/&∃1/∋! ∋Σ−71/∋%! +(! −,&∃.≅−Α! −,∃73%Ρ
∗)−Β,!−!/∃,∋! −/+3≅#!−//∋≅−&∃+,%! +(!%∋Σ! %&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅!−,∗! %∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!4/3)
#∃∃∗∃Μ?Μ/!:−∋,∃66∗=Μ∗ς,(+,∗>>∗<2!5+Εϑ!8;_:8γΝ!ΟΕΓ3,∋!8α2!89:;Ρ!Ο(∃,∗∃,≅!
−&!1/−∃,&∃((! #−∗!%3((∃0∃∋,&/Α! −//∋≅∋∗!that he had been “%34Ξ∋0&∋∗!&+! −!#+%&∃/∋! Β+)Χ!∋,6∃)+,7∋,&!
because of gender nonconformity” −(&∋)2! −7+,≅! +∋)! ∃,≅%2! )∋1∋−&∋∗/Α! being called “fag,”
“butthole Burnett,” “hot butt fagot” and being asked whether he “was taking it up the ass”).!
!
!
!
∃∀!
!
Μ∋6∋)−/!0+3)&%2!#+Β∋6∋)2!#−6∋!0+,0/3∗∋∗!−&!∃&!∃%!∃71+%%∃4/∋!&+!∗)−Β!/∃,∋%!∃,!∃%!−)∋−!−,∗!
#−6∋!∗∋0/∃,∋∗!&+!&)Α!&+!∗+!%+Κ,!+∋)!Β+)∗%2!(+)!ϑΦΠ!∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/%2!∋∃)!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,2!∃&%∋/(2!
∃%!≅∋,∗∋)!,+,0+,(+)7∃,≅!−,∗!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!−&!4−%∃%!∃%!−0&∃+,−4/∋!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ#∃∃∗∃Μ?Μ/∗
Ι(,∀6∃&)∗=Μ∗8&Γ&.∃66∃∗:)Μ∗+Γ∗ 2! :χ;!⊥ Μ311<_ class="_ _0"> :_Να!Ο5 ⊥/−
(“[G]ay people, simply by identifying themselves as gay, are violating the ultimate gender
%&∋)∋+&Α1∋—heterosexual attraction. . . . When a “traditionally masculine” gay 7−,!∃%!(∃)∋∗!4∋0−3%∋!
he is gay, that firing is no less because of sex than when an “effeminate” gay man is fired)#∃∃∗
;∃∋=∃∃∋∗=Μ∗:(77(,?6+,2!_Ν!⊥.3d 100 (D. D.C. 2014) (denying employer’s motion to dismiss;
“Plaintiff has alleged that he is “a homosexual male whose sexual orientation is not consistent with
the Defendant’s perception of acceptable gender roles); Κ∃77∃∋∗=Μ∗ Β)?∃ϑ&6∃∋∗
<7−Λ2! :χ! ⊥.2d 1212, 1224 (D. Ore. 2002) (denying employer’s motion for summary
Ξ3∗≅7∋,&!−%!−!Ξ3)Α!0+3/∗!(∃,∗!−&!∋!1/−∃,&∃((!Ο−!Β+7−,Ρ!Β−%!#−)−%%∋∗!−,∗!∗∃%0#−)≅∋∗!4∋0−3%∋!+(!
−!(−∃/3)∋!&+!0+,(+)7!&+!#+Β!−!Β+7−,!+3≅#&!&+!4∋#−6∋ς!1/−∃,&∃((!Β−%!−&&)−0&∋∗!&+!+∋)!Β+7∋,!−,∗!
#∋)!%31∋)6∃%+)!4∋/∃∋6∋∗!−&!%#∋!%#+3/∗!4∋!−&&)−0&∋∗!&+!−,∗!∗−&∋!7∋,Ρ
Μ&∃//2!ϑΦΠ!1/−∃,&∃((%!Β#+!(−∃/!&+!0+,(+)7!&+!≅∋,∗∋)!,+)7%!∃,!−11∋−)−,0∋2!7−,,∋)∃%7%!−,∗!
4∋#−6∃+)!∃,!∋!Β+)Χ1/−0∋!−11∋−)!&+!#−6∋!≅)∋−&∋)!%300∋%%!13)%3∃,≅!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0/−∃7%!4−%∋∗!
+,! %∋Σ! %&∋)∋+&Α1∋%! −,! #−6∋! ≅∋,∗∋)! 0+,(+)7∃,≅! ϑΦΠ! ∃,∗∃6∃∗3−/%#∃∃∗ ∃Μ?Μ/∗ Β=&,∀∗ =Μ∗ 9∃+∋?(&∗
>∃?(+,&7∗ Κ+∀3<2! γ9! ⊥<_ :8 class="fs4 ls1a ws3f v1">! Η∃)! 89:;Ρ! Ο#+/∗∃,≅! −&! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ! ∗+∋%! ,+&! 1)+&∋0&!
−≅−∃,%&!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2!43&!#+/∗∃,≅!−&!∋!1/−∃,&∃((!%#+3/∗!4∋!−//+Β∋∗!/∋−6∋!&+!
−7∋,∗!#∋)!0+71/−∃,&!&+!−//∋≅∋!−&!#∋)!“decision &+!1)∋%∋,&!#∋)%∋/(!∃,!−!7−%03/∃,∋!7−,,∋)”!)∋%3/&∋∗!
∃,!−∗6∋)%∋! ∋71/+Α7∋,&!−0&∃+,%Ρς! <5∋(∀6(&,∀∃,∗ =Μ∗ ΗΑ,(4+Α∗ 9∋+−32! γ8! ⊥<_ class="_ _0"> :χ2! 89:! Ο8,∗! Η∃)
89:;Ρ!(holding that plaintiff’s ≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅! −//∋≅−&∃+,%! %&−&∋∗! −!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ! 0/−∃7ς! 1/−∃,&∃((!
“alleges that he was perceived by his supervisor as effeminate and submissive and that he was
harassed for these reasons”Ρς!Φ(4Ε∃∋∀∗ =Μ∗ 0&(∋Γ(∃7)∗ %∃)Μ∗ <6∋Μ/! Ν_! ⊥<_>∗
Ο#+/∗∃,≅!−&! ≅∋( 4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃!Β−%! 0+,0∋),∋∗! Β∃! ≅∋,∗∋)! ,+,0+,(+)7∃,≅! 0#−)−0&∋)∃%&∃0%! −&!
Β∋)∋!)∋−∗∃/Α! ∗∋7+,%&)−4/∋!∃,! ∋! Β+)Χ1/−0∋2!%30#!−%! −11∋−)−,0∋!+)!7−,,∋)∃%7%ς! ∋71/+Α∋∋%!−)∋!
,+&!1)+&∋0&∋∗!7∋)∋/Α!4∋0−3%∋!∋Α!−)∋!1∋)0∋∃6∋∗!&+!4∋!#+7+%∋Σ3−/Ρς!Χ(45+7∀∗=Μ∗2Ω6∃4&∗>∃∀6&−∋&,6∗
Β,6∃∋∀Μ/∗!,4Μ2! 8α!⊥<_ class="_ _0"> γαΝ2! γ;Ν!Οχ! Η∃) 899:Ρ!Ο#+/∗∃,≅! −&!0+,%∃%&∋,&!Β∃! ≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃2!
#−)−%%7∋,&!4−%∋∗!+,!∋!1∋)0∋1&∃+,!−&!−!7−/∋!∋71/+Α∋∋!Β−%!∋((∋7∃,−&∋!+003))∋∗!4∋0−3%∋!+(!%∋ΣΡς!
∀∃∃∗&7∀+∗Π)∃−,!Μ+30∋Χ2!≅∃∋4∃(=∃)∗Κ+Α+∀∃Ο−&7∀2!α_!Ι7Τ Ο89:ΝΡ!!Ο∗∃%03%%∃,≅!
trend among the courts: “I,!0−%∋%!∃,6+/6∃,≅!%∋Σ3−/∃&Α2!1/−∃,&∃((%!&∋,∗!&+!Β∃,!∃(!−,∗!+,/Α!∃(!∋Α!(−∃/!
to conform to stereotypes in ways seen at work.”Ρ
Ε#−&!−)∋!∋!∃71/∃0−&∃+,%!+(!1)+&∋0&∃,≅!≅−Α!−,∗!/∋%4∃−,!∋71/+Α∋∋%!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!+,7.∗ (Γ!
∋Α!(−∃/!&+!0+,(+)7!&+!≅∋,∗∋)!,+)7%!∃,!∋∃)!4∋#−6∃+)!+)!−11∋−)−,0∋!Β#∃/∋!/∋−6∃,≅!7−%03/∃,∋!≅−Α!
7∋,!+)!(∋7∃,∃,∋!/∋%4∃−,%!3,1)+&∋0&∋∗]!
!
_8#),(4!Ξ(5+3+#∃−& .#2Π#)>+%≅>! Λ)+Β∋/! −/%+!−//∋ ≅∋∗!)∋/∃≅∃+3%! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+, ∀#∋! 0+3)&!
explained that “Title VII seeks to protect employees not only from discrimination against them on
∋!4−%∃%! +(!∋∃)! )∋/∃≅∃+3%!4∋/∃∋(%2!43&! −/%+!()+7! forced religious conformity.” Κ,!−! /∋−∗∃,≅!0−%∋!
−∗∗)∋%%∃,≅!)∋/∃≅∃+3%! 0+,(+)7∃&Α2! ∋! Μ∋6∋,! Η∃)03∃&! ∗∋%0)∃4∋∗!∋!1)+#∃4∃&∃+,! −%! (+)4∃∗∗∃,≅! −,!
employer from forcing employees “to measure up to [the employer’s] religious expectations.”
!
!
!
∃#!
!
Φ∃,6∃∋∀∗=Μ∗∆∃735(2!:8_!⊥<_ class="_ _0"> χ;8!Ο;!Cir. 1997) (a plaintiff “need only show that her
perceived religious shortcomings . . . played a motivating role in [the employment decision]”). !
∀#∋!0+3)&!)∋Ξ∋0&∋∗!Prowel’s claim of religious discrimination because it was based on his
(−∃/3)∋!&+!0+,(+)m to his coworker’s religious views −4+3&!#+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α&+!∋!0+3)&2!
Prowel’s!)∋/∃≅∃+3%!0/−∃7! Β−%!−,! −&&∋71&!&+! 4++&%&)−1!1)+&∋0&∃+,! (+)!%∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,!+,&+! ∀∃&/∋!
=ΚΚ Α+3!−≅)∋∋]! Κ(! −,! ∋71/+Α∋)! ∃%! ,+&! −//+Β∋∗! −%!−! 0+,∗∃&∃+,! +(! ∋71/+Α7∋,&! &+! )∋ι3∃)∋! −,!
employee to live in accord with the employer’s religious views, then should it m−&&∋)!Β#−&!+%∋!
6∃∋Β%! ∋,&−∃/]! Κ%! Λ)+Β∋/! 4∋∃,≅! 13,∃%#∋∗!4∋0 −3%∋! ∋! )∋/∃≅∃+3%! 6∃∋Β! 1∋)&−∃,%! &+! #+7+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α]!!
Μ311+%∋!Prowel’s coworkers #∋/∗!%&)+,≅!)∋/∃≅∃+3%!6∃∋Β%!−4+3&!∋!%−,0&∃&Α!+(!7−))∃−≅∋
−/%+! −&! Λ)+Β∋/! ∃%! #∋&∋)+%∋Σ3−/! −,∗! −&! #∃%! ∋71/+Α∋)!&∋)7 ∃,−&∋%!#∃7! −(&∋)! /∋−),∃,≅!−&! #∋! ∃%!
∃,6+/6∋∗!∃,!−,! −∗3/&∋)+3%!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1! Β∃!−! 7−))∃∋∗!Β+7−,! “in violation of God’s command.”!
δ∃((∋)∋,&! )∋%3/&! −,! ∃,! ≅∋+ϑ∃7]! #∃∃∗ #&∋∃,3&∗ =Μ∗ ΒΟ3∋∃∀∀∗ !Α&?∃∀/∗ !,4Μ2! 5+
ΟΓη∀?ΓΜ∆Ρ2!899!Εϑ!_8χΝ!Οδ
∋!0+,&∋Σ&!+(!−,!∋Σ&)−7−)∃&−/!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1Ρς!∀∃∃∗&7∀+∗;∃∋=∃∃∋∗=Μ∗:(77(,?6+,2!_Ν!⊥:99!Οδ
δ
∗∃%−≅)∋∋∃,≅!Β∃!≅∋+ϑ∃7Ρ<!!
Τ7& Ξ(%15+1%+#2>!The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wise on Prowel’s
)∋&−/∃−&∃+,!0/−∃7!0/−∃72!Λ)+Β∋/!#−∗!&+!%#+Β!−&!#∋!∋,≅−≅∋∗!∃,!1)+&∋0&∋∗!−0&∃6∃&Α2!
Β#∃0#!7−Α!0+,%∃%&!+(!+11+%∃,≅! −!1)−0&∃0∋!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!7−Χ∋%!3,/−Β(3/!Ο∋ 4∋0−3%∋!
+(! )−0∋! +)! %∋ΣΡ#∃∃! Ν8! Τ&!
1/−∃,&∃((%! 7∋∋&! −&! 43)∗∋,! ∃(! ∋Α! %#+Β! ∋Α! #−∗! −! ≅++∗! (−∃! )∋−%+,−4/∋! 4∋/∃∋(! −&! ∋!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&+)Α!1)−0&∃0∋%!−4+3&!Β#∃0#!∋Α!0+71/−∃,!6∃+/−&∋!∋!%&−&3&∋#∃∃!∆−&∋Β!ΕΦ)∋∋,!Γ)<2!
What’s So Reasonable About Reasonableness? Rejecting a CaseΡ8&ϑ∗
VII’s Reasonable Belief Doctrine2!α8! Τ<!φΙ5<!ϑ<!η[= ;χ2! ;;:!ϕ! , Ο89:ΝΡΠ∋0−3%∋!%∋Σ3−/!
+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∃%! ,+&!∋Σ1/∃0∃&/Α!1)+&∋0&∋∗! 4Α!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ2!∋!∗∃%&)∃0&! 0+3)&!#∋/∗! −&! Λ)+Β∋//!0+3/∗! ,+&!
#−6∋! )∋−%+,−4/Α! 4∋/∃∋6∋∗! −&! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! +,! −&! 4−%∃%! Β−%! 3,/−Β(3/
Η∃)03∃&! )∋6∋)%∋! ∋! ∗∃%&)∃0&! 0+3)&! Β∃! )∋%1∋0&! &+! ∋! )∋&−/∃−&∃+,! 0/−∃7]! Μ#+3/∗! ∋71/+Α∋∋%! Β#+!
0#−//∋,≅∋!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! ∃,!∋! Β+)Χ1/−0∋!4∋! 1)+&∋0&∋∗!()+7! )∋&−/∃−&∃+,!3,∗∋)!
Title VII? What factors should determine the reasonableness of an employee’s belief!−4+3&! ∋!
3,/−Β(3/,∋%%!+(! 0#−//∋,≅∋∗! 0+,∗30&]! Κ%! ∃&! ∋6∋,! )∋−%+,−4/∋!&+! −%%37∋!−&! /−Α! ∋71/+Α∋∋%! Χ,+Β!
Β#∃0#! &)−∃&%! −)∋! 1)+&∋0&∋∗! 4Α! (∋∗∋)−/! /−Β! −,∗! Β#∃0#! −)∋! ,+&]! #∃∃!%4Μ[Μ∗ >∃.,+7)∀∗
;+Λ&44+∗<2!5+9χ–8Νχ!ΕΠΜ!δΙδ2!89::!Εϑ!Ν99αα_Ν2!−&!σΝ!Ο[!
Ο(∃,∗∃,≅!(+)!13)1+%∋%!+(!−!)∋&−/∃−&∃+,!0/−∃7!−&!1/−∃,&∃((%!Β∋)∋!)∋−%+,−4/∋!∃,!∋∃)!4∋/∃∋(!−&!%∋Σ3−/!
orientation discrimination was unlawful under Title VII; noting the “growing gay rights movement
in this country” as support for the reasonable belief).!
!
≅∋+Λ7∃Α∗∴∗
!
Η#)∃%&+1#∋)!δ−,6∋)%!Β−%!∋71/+Α∋∗! −%!−! %∋03)∃&Α!≅3−)∗! −&! ⊥∆Η2!Κ,0<2! Β#∋)∋!#∋! Β+)Χ∋∗!Β∃! :!
+∋)! 7−/∋! %∋03)∃&Α! ≅3−)∗%
!
!
!
∃∃!
!
befriended a “male homosexual” h∋!Β−%!%34Ξ∋0&∋∗!&+!#−)−%%7∋,&≅∋∗!−&!#∃%!0+Β+)Χ∋)%2!
−7+,≅!+ ∋)!∃,≅%2! 7−∗∋! ()∋ι3∋,&! ∗∋)+≅−&+)Α! 0+77∋,&%! )∋≅−)∗∃,≅! #∃%! %∋Σ3−/! 1)∋(∋)∋,0∋%! −,∗!
activities; frequently called him a “fag” and questioned his masculinity because of his “special
()∃∋,∗”ς!−%Χ∋∗!#∃7! (+)!%∋Σ3−/! (−6+)%ς!)∋1∋−&∋∗/Α! &+30#∋∗!#∃%! 0)+&0#!Β∃! −!&−1∋!7∋−%3)∋ς!%#+6∋∗!
%−,∃&−)Α!,−1Χ∃,%! ∃,! #∃%! (−0∋! −,∗!%∃73/−&∋∗!%∋Σ! Β∃! −! %&3((∋∗! −,∃7−/!−,∗!∋,! &)∃∋∗! &+! 13%#! ∋!
%&3((∋∗!−,∃7−/!∃,&+!δ−,6∋)%’ crotch and bacΧ%∃∗∋ β,!−,+∋)!+00−%∃+,2!#∋!−//∋≅∋∗!#∃%!0+Β+)Χ∋)%!
#−,∗03((∋∗! #∃72! 13//∋∗! ∗+Β,! #∃%! 1−,&%! −,∗! %∃73/−&∋∗! %∋Σ! Β∃! #∃7! Β#∃/∋! +,∋! +(! 0+Β+)Χ∋)%!
photographed the incident. The images were later placed in Christopher’s workplace mailbox.
Η#)∃%&+1#∋)! %−Α%! −&! #∃%! 0+Β+)Χ∋)%! #−6∋! )∋1∋−&∋∗/Α! −%Χ∋∗2! 43&! −&! #∋! #−%! )∋(3%∋∗!&+! −,%Β ∋)2!
Β#∋∋)!#∋!∃%!≅−Α
Η#)∃%&+1#∋)!0+7∋%!&+!Α+3!(+)!−∗6∃0∋!+,!Β#∋∋)!#∋!#−%!−,!−0&∃+,−4/∋!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!0/−∃7−∗6∃%∋!
#∃7
&
≅∋+Λ7∃Α∗]∗
!
∀#+7−%!ϑ30−%!Β+)Χ∋∗!(+)!ΙΗ∆[2!Κ,0<2!(+)!%∋6∋)−/!Α∋−)%!−,∗!Β#∃/∋!∋71/+Α∋∗!∋)∋2!#∋!∋,Ξ+Α∋∗!−!
0+)∗∃−/!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1!Β∃!#∃%!%31∋)6∃%+)!ϑ+∃%!Ψ+1%0+&0#−//!%∋∋7∋∗!&+!0#−,≅∋!−(&∋)! ∀#+7−%!
7−))∃∋∗!#∃%!1−)&,∋)2!Γ+∋!⊥∋/∗7−,−4∃&!+(!0−//∃,≅!#∋)!%34+)∗∃,−&∋%!4Α!∋∃)!/−%&!,−7∋%!
−,∗!%#∋!&)∋−&∋∗!Γ+∋!∋!same way, calling him “Lucas.” Ι(&∋)!#∋!7−))∃∋∗2!#+Β∋6∋)2!∀#+7−%!Β+3/∗!
repeatedly remind Lois that he had taken Joe’s last name and that she should call him “Feldman,”
not “Lucas.” ϑ+∃%!∃≅,+)∋∗!#∃%!)∋ι3∋%&%!&+!4∋!0−//∋∗!4Α!#∃%!7−))∃∋∗!,−7∋!%#∋!
would never refer to him as “Feldman” because she refused to recognize his “so.0−//∋∗!marriage”
+)! #∃%! ,−7∋! 0#−,≅∋“It’s just not natural,” she said. Μ#∋!&+/∗! #∃7! −&! ∋∃∋)! #∋! Β+3/∗! ≅+! 4Α!
“Lucas” or he’d have to find another jo4When Thomas insisted on being called “Feldman,” Lois
(∃)∋∗!#∃7
∀#+7−%!0+7∋%!&+! Α+3!(+)! −∗6∃0∋!+,!Β#∋∋)!#∋!#−%! −,!−0&∃+,−4/∋! ∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!0/−∃7−∗6∃%∋!
#∃7
Θ7& 9(Β∃15&Χ)+(2%1%+#2&Θ+−,)+>+21%+#2&4(&9(Β&Θ+−,)+>+21%+#2&
!
Ι∋:ϑ∀80;)Α∋∗∀0;)∗+)4∗;)/∀−=)12::>%∋&;)1200∀Κ∀)2.)4%7∋∃%∃)
Ηςϑ&87ϑ4&ϑςΜ&ΛΚ%∋&.+)7&ΙΓΝΚΟ&Λ∀%)ϑ∃%−Ο&
Χ?+2+#2&
Εββδ2!Η#∃∋(!Γ3∗≅∋
!
∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ! +(!∋! Η∃6∃/! η∃≅#&%!Ι0&! +(!:χαΝ! 7−Χ∋%! ∃&!3,/−Β(3/! (+)!∋71/+Α∋)%!%34Ξ∋0&! &+!∋! Ι0&!&+!
discriminate on the basis of a person’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ” Ν8!Τ
λ!8999∋.8Ο−Ρ ⊥+)! 7−,Α! Α∋−)%2! ∋! 0+3)&%! +(! −11∋−/%! +(! ∃%! 0+3,&)Α! 3,∗∋)%&++∗! ∋!1)+#∃4∃&∃+,!
!
!
!
∃%!
!
against sex discrimination to exclude discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation.
∀#∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&2!#+Β∋6∋)2!#−%!,∋6∋)!%1+Χ∋,!&+!−&!ι3∋%&∃+,∋!#−6∋!4∋∋,!−%Χ∋∗!
&+!&−Χ∋!−!()∋%#!/++Χ!−&!+3)!1+%∃&∃+,!∃,!/∃≅#&!+(!∗∋6∋/+17∋,&%!−&! ∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!∋Σ&∋,∗∃,≅!+6∋)!
&Β+!∗∋0−∗∋% %+2!−,∗!Β∋!0+,0/3∗∋!&+∗−Α!−&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ3−/!
+)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∃%! −! (+)7! +(! %∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,e therefore reverse the district court’s judgment
dismissing Kimberly Hively’s suit against Ivy Tech Community College and remand for further
1)+0∋∋∗∃,≅%
!!
0&
Ψ∃6∋/Α! ∃%! +1∋,/Α! /∋%4∃−,
Η+773,ity College’s South Bend campus in 2000. Hoping to improve her lot, she applied for at
/∋−%&!%∃Σ!(3//.&∃7∋!1+%∃&∃+,%!4∋&Β∋∋,!899χ!−,∗!89:Ν3,%300∋%%(3/ς!Β+)%∋!Α∋&2!
∃,!Γ3/Α! 89:Ν!#∋)!1−)&.&∃7∋! 0+,&)−0&!Β−%!,+&! )∋,∋Β∋∗Π∋/∃∋6∃,≅!−&! Κ6Α! ∀∋0#!Β−%! %13),∃,≅! #∋)!
4∋0−3%∋! +(! #∋)! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,2! %#∋! (∃/∋∗! −! 1)+! %∋! 0#−)≅∋! Β∃! ∋! [ι3−/! [71/+Α7∋,&!
β11+)&3,∃&Α!Η+77∃%%∃+,!+,!δ∋0∋74∋)!:_2!89:_!
Κ!#−6∋!−11/∃∋∗!(+)!%∋6∋)−/!1+%∃&∃+,%! −&!Κ=Θ! ∀[ΗΨ2!(3//&∃7∋2! ∃,!∋!/−%&! !Α∋−)% Κ!4∋/∃∋6∋! Κ!−7!
4∋∃,≅!4/+0Χ∋∗!()+7!(3//&∃7∋!∋71/+Α7∋,&!Β∃+3&!Ξ3%&!0−3%∋
−≅−∃,%&!4−%∋∗!+,!7Α!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,
)∃≅#&%!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!+(!∋!Η∃6∃/!η∃≅#&%!Ι0&!+(!:χαΝ!Β∋)∋!6∃+/−&∋∗
Ι(&∋)!)∋0∋∃6∃,≅!−!)∃≅#&.&+.%3∋!/∋&&∋)2!%#∋!(∃/∋∗!∃%!−0&∃+,!∃,!∋!∗∃%&)∃0&!0+3)&!Ο−≅−∃,!−0&∃,≅!1)+!%∋Ρ
Κ6Α!∀∋0#! )∋%1+,∗∋∗!Β∃! −! 7+&∃+,!&+! ∗∃%7∃%%! (+)!(−∃/3)∋! &+!%&−&∋! −! 0/−∃7!+,! Β#∃0#!)∋/∃∋(!0−,! 4∋!
≅)−,&∋∗
line of this court’s cases exemplified by Κ&Α,∃∋∗=Μ∗#6Μ∗Φ(,4∃,6∗Κ+∀3Μ∗&,)∗Κ∃&765∗2!
224 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2000), the district court granted Ivy Tech’s motion and dismissed Hively’s
0−%∋!Β∃!1)∋Ξ3∗∃0∋
!!
5+Β!)∋1)∋%∋,&∋∗! 4Α!∋! ϑ−74∗−!ϑ∋≅−/!δ∋(∋,%∋! ϕ![∗30−&∃+,! ⊥3,∗2!Ψ∃6∋/Α!#−%!−11∋−/∋∗!&+! ∃%!
0+3)&∋!/−Β!≅+6∋),∃,≅!0/−∃7%!∃,6+/6∃,≅!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!4−%∋∗!
+,!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,2! ∋!1−,∋/! −((∃)7∋∗Κ(=∃7.∗ =Μ∗!=.∗;∃45∗2! γ_9!⊥<_ class="_ _0"> αχγ!Ο;! Η∃)
89:αΡ
∃%!%+7∋#+Β! ∗∃%&∃,0&! ()+7!%∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! +)∃≅∃,−&∋∗!Β∃!∗∃0&−! ∃,! ς7&,∃∗=Μ∗Β&∀6∃∋,∗ 2(∋7(,∃∀/∗
!,4Μ2! ;Ν8! ⊥<8∗! :9γ:! Ο;! Η∃)ς7&,∃!stated (as if this resolved matters) that Title VII’s
prohibition against sex discrimination “implies that it is unlawful to discriminate against women
because they are women and against men because they are men.” !)Μ!−&!:9γ
deduced that “Congress had nothing more than the traditional notion of ‘sex’ in mind when it voted
&+!+3&/−Β!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,” ∆+∃∗=Μ∗ :∃77∃=(77∃/∗!77Μ2!::χ!⊥<_>
4∃∋6Μ∗ ?∋&,6∃)/∗ ⊥−)?Α∃,6∗ =&4&6∃)∗ ∀−Λ∗ ,+ΑΜ∗ 2! 8_! Τ
&Λ∋+?&6∃)∗Λ.∗Η,4&7∃∗=Μ∗#−,)+ϑ,∃∋∗ΗΓΓ∀5+∋∃∗#∃∋=∀Μ/∗!,4Μ2!8_!Τ
!
<<
!!
Ι/7+%&!−//!+(!+3)!%∃%&∋)!0∃)03∃&%!#−6∋!3,∗∋)%&++∗!∋!/−Β!∃,!∋!%−7∋!Β−Α
!
!
!
∃&!
!
!
<<
!
∀#−&!∃%!,+&!4∋0−3%∋!∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!#−%!/∋(&!∃%!%34Ξ∋0&!∋,&∃)∋/Α!&+!∋!%∃∗∋∋!0+,&)−)Α2!−%!
∋!1−,∋/!)∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗2!+6∋)!∋!Α∋−)%!∋!Η+3)&!#−%!∃%%3∋∗!%∋6∋)−/!+1∃,∃+,%!−&!−)∋!)∋/∋6−,&!&+!∋!
∃%%3∋!4∋(+)∋!3%+%∋!∗∋0∃%∃+,%!−)∋!≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃∗=Μ∗Κ+3Ε(,∀2!Νχ9!Τ88γ!Ο:χγχΡ2!
−,∗!Η,4&7∃∗=Μ∗ #−,)+ϑ,∃∋∗ΗΓΓ∀5+∋∃∗ #∃∋=∀Μ/∗!,4Μ2!8_!Τ;!Ο:χχγΡ≅∋(4∃∗ Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃!#∋/∗! −&!
the practice of gender stereotyping falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination,
−,∗!Η,4&7∃!0/−)∃(∃∋∗!−&!∃&!7−Χ∋%!,+!∗∃((∋)∋,0∋!∃(!∋!%∋Σ!+(!∋!#−)−%%∋)!∃%!Ο+)!∃%!,+&Ρ!∋!%−7∋!−%!
the sex of the victim. Our panel frankly acknowledged how difficult it is “to extricate the gender
nonconformity claims from the sexual orientation claims.” 830 F.3d at 709. T#−&! ∋((+)&2! ∃&!
commented, has led to a “confused hodge.podge of cases.” !)Μ!at 711. It also noted that “all gay,
/∋%4∃−,!−,∗!4∃%∋Σ3−/!1∋)%+,%!(−∃/!&+!0+71/Α!Β∃!∋!%∃,∋!ι3−!,+,!+(!≅∋,∗∋)!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋%—−&!−//!
7∋,!%#+3/∗! (+)7! ∃,&∃7−&∋!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1%! +,/Α! Β∃!Β+7∋,2!−,∗! −//! Β+7∋,!%#+3/∗! (+)7! ∃,&∃7−&∋!
relationships only with men.” !)Μ!Especially since the Supreme Court’s recognition that the Due
Λ)+0∋%%!−,∗![ι3−/!Λ)+&∋0&∃+,!Η/−3%∋%!+(!∋!Η+,%&∃&3&∃+,!1)+&∋0&!∋!)∃≅#&!+(!%−7∋.%∋Σ!0+31/∋%!&+!
7−))Α2!ΗΛ∃∋?∃Γ∃77∗=Μ∗Κ+)?∃∀2!:_!ΜΟ89:Ρ2!4∃Ζ−))∋!)∋%3/&%!∋,%3∋!()+7!∋!03))∋,&!)∋≅∃7∋
As the panel noted, it creates “a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on
Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.” 830 F.3d at 714. Final/Α2!∋!1−,∋/!#∃≅#/∃≅#&∋∗!
∋!%#−)1!&∋,%∃+,!4∋&Β∋∋,!−!)3/∋!−&!(−∃/%!&+!)∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋!−&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!∋!%∋Σ!
Β∃! Β#+7!−! 1∋)%+,! −%%+0∃−&∋%! ∃%! −! (+)7! +(! %∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2! −,∗! ∋! )3/∋2! )∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗! %∃,0∋!
8+=(,?∗=Μ∗ Φ(∋?(,(&/!_γγ! Τ Ο:χα;Ρ2!−&! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! +,!∋! 4−%∃%!+(! ∋!)−0∋! Β∃!Β#+7!−!
1∋)%+,!−%%+0∃−&∋%!∃%!−!(+)7!+(!)−0∃−/!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,
!!
<<
!
00&
Ι!
The question before us is not whether this court can, or should, “amend” Title VII to add a new
protected category to the familiar list of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Ν8!Τ
λ!8999∋.8Ο−Ρ β46∃+3%/Α! −&! /∃∋%! 4∋Α+,∗! +3)!1+Β∋) 73%&! ∗∋0∃∗∋! ∃,%&∋−∗! Β#−&! ∃&!7∋−,%!&+!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋!+,! ∋! 4−%∃%!+(! %∋Σ2! −,∗! ∃,!1−)&∃03/−)2! Β#∋∋)! −0&∃+,%!&−Χ∋,! +,! ∋! 4−%∃%!+(! %∋Σ3−/!
+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!−)∋!−!%34%∋&! +(!−0&∃+,%! &−Χ∋,!+,! ∋!4−%∃%!+(! %∋Σ ∃%!−! 13)∋!ι3∋%&∃+,!+(! %&−&3&+)Α!
interpretation and thus well within the judiciary’s competence.!
!
<<
!!
!!
Κ6Α!∀∋0#!%∋&%!≅)∋−&! %&+)∋!+,!∋! (−0&!−&!Η+,≅)∋%%! #−%!()∋ι3∋,&/Α!0+,%∃∗∋)∋∗! −7∋,∗∃,≅!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!
to add the words “sexual orientation” to the list of prohibited characteristics, yet it has never done
%+ +(! +3)! %∃%&∋)!0∃)03∃&%!#−6∋! −/%+! ,+&∋∗! ∃%! (−0& Κ,!+3)! 6∃∋Β2! #+Β∋6∋)2! ∃&!∃%!%∃71/Α!&++!
∗∃((∃03/&!&+!∗)−Β!−!)∋/∃−4/∋!∃,(∋)∋,0∋!()+7!∋%∋!&)3,0−&∋∗!/∋≅∃%/−&∃6∋!∃,∃&∃−&∃6∋%!&+!)∋%&!+3)!+1∃,∃+,!
!
!
!
∃ϑ!
!
+,!∋7 ∀#∋!≅+−/1+%&%! #−6∋!4∋∋,!7+6∃,≅! +6∋)!&#∋!Α∋−)%2! −%!∋! Μ31)∋7∋! Η+3)&!#−%! %#∋∗!7+)∋!
/∃≅#&!+,!∋!%0+1∋!+(!∋!/−,≅3−≅∋!−&!−/)∋−∗Α!∃%!∃,!∋!%&−&3&∋>!,+!∀∃Ο!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,
!!
∀#∋!∗∃%%∋,&!7−Χ∋%!730#!+(!∋!(−0&!−&!Η+,≅)∋%%∋%!−0&∃,≅!7+)∋!−,!∃)&Α!Α∋−)%!−(&∋)!∋!1−%%−≅∋!
of Title VII made use of the term “sexual orientation” to prohibit discrimination or!6∃+/∋,0∋! +,!
−&!4−%∃%!∃,! %&−&3&∋%!%30#!−%!∋!=∃+/∋,0∋!Ι≅−∃,%&!Ε+7∋,!Ι0&!−,∗!∋!(∋∗∋)−/!Ψ−&∋!Η)∃7∋%! Ι0&
Π3&!∃%!≅∋&%!3%!,+!0/+%∋)!&+!−,%Β∋)∃,≅!∋!ι3∋%&∃+,!−&!#−,∗2!(+)!Η+,≅)∋%%!7−Α!0∋)&−∃,/Α!0#++%∋!&+!
3%∋! 4+! −! 4∋/&! −,∗! %3%1∋,∗∋)%! &+! −0#∃∋6∋! ∃&%! +4Ξectives, and the fact that “sex” and “sexual
orientation” discrimination may overlap in later statutes is of no help in determining whether
%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!(∀!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ!(+)!∋!13)1+%∋%!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ
0#++%∋!−!4∋/&.−,∗.suspenders approach to promote its policy objectives ... .”).!
!!
∆+)∋+6∋)2!∋!−≅∋,0Α!7+%&!0/+%∋/Α!−%%+0∃−&∋∗!Β∃!∃%!/−Β2!∋![ι3−/![71/+Α7∋,&!β11+)&3,∃&Α!
Commission, in 2015 announced that it now takes the position that Title VII’s prohibition against
%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!∋,0+71−%%∋%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,:&7)ϑ(,∗=Μ∗
0+ΟΟ2![[βΗ!Ι11∋−/!5+ Εϑ!Ν_χ;αΝ:!ΟΓ3/Α!:2!89:Ρ β3)!1+∃,&!#∋)∋! ∃%!,+&!
that we have a duty to defer to the EEOC’s position. We assume for present purposes that no such
duty exists. But the Commission’s position may have caused some in Congress to think that
/∋≅∃%/−&∃+,!∃%!,∋∋∗∋∗!&+! 0−)6∋!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!+−6!+(! ∋!%&−&3&∋2!,+&! &+!13&!∃&! (, ∋,∗2!Β∋!
#−6∋!,+!∃∗∋−!Β#−&!∃,(∋)∋,0∋!&+!∗)−Β!()+7!0+,≅)∋%%∃+,−/!∃,−0&∃+,!+)!/−&∋)!∋,−0&7∋,&%2!4∋0−3%∋!∋)∋!
is no way of knowing what explains each individual member’s votes, much less what explains the
(−∃/3)∋!+(!∋!4+∗Α!−%!−!Β#+/∋!&+!0#−,≅∋!∃%!:χαΝ!%&−&3&∋
!!
Our interpretive task is guided instead by the Supreme Court’s approach in the closely related case
+(!Η,4&7∃2! Β#∋)∋!∃&! #−∗! ∃%!&+! %−Α!−%! ∃&! −∗∗)∋%%∋∗!∋! ι3∋%&∃+,!Β#∋∋)!∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ!0+6∋)%! %∋Σ3−/!
#−)−%%7∋,&!∃,(/∃0&∋∗!4Α!−!7−,!+,!−!7−/∋!6∃0&∃7>!
Ε∋! %∋∋! ,+! Ξ3%&∃(∃0−&∃+,! ∃,! ∋! %&−&3&+)Α! /−,≅3−≅∋! +)! +3)! 1)∋0∋∗∋,&%! (+)! −! 0−&∋≅+)∃0−/! )3/∋!
∋Σ0/3∗∃,≅!%−7∋.% ∋Σ! #−)−%%7∋,&!0/−∃7%! ()+7! ∋! 0+6∋)−≅∋! +(! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ
+4%∋)6∋∗2!7−/∋.+,.7−/∋!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!∃,!∋!Β+)Χ1/−0∋!Β−%!−%%3)∋∗/Α!,+&!∋!1)∃,0∃1−/!∋6∃/!
Η+,≅)∋%%! Β−%! 0+,0∋),∋∗! Β∃! Β#∋,! ∃&! ∋,−0&∋∗! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚ
4∋Α+,∗!∋!1)∃,0∃1−/!∋6∃/!&+!0+6∋)!)∋−%+,−4/Α!0+71−)−4/∋!∋6∃/%2!−,∗!∃&!∃%!3/&∃7−&∋/Α!∋!1)+6∃%∃+,%!
+(!+3)!/−Β%!)−∋)!−,!∋!1)∃,0∃1−/!0+,0∋),%!+(!+3)!/∋≅∃%/−&+)%!4Α!Β#∃0#!Β∋!−)∋!≅+6∋),∋∗
VII prohibits “discriminat[ion] .! . sex” in the “terms” or “conditions” of
∋71/+Α7∋,&−&!∃%!∃,0/3∗∋%!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!73%&!∋Σ&∋,∗!&+!%∋Σ3−/!#−)−%%7∋,&!
+(!−,Α!Χ∃,∗!−&!7∋∋&%!∋!%&−&3&+)Α!)∋ι3∃)∋7∋,&%
8_!Τ–γ9Η+3)&!0+3/∗!,+&!#−6∋!4∋∋,!0/∋−)∋)>!∋!(−0&!−&!∋!∋,−0&∃,≅!Η+,≅)∋%%!7−Α!
,+&!#−6∋!−,&∃0∃1−&∋∗!−! 1−)&∃03/−)!−11/∃0−&∃+,!+(! ∋!/−Β!0−,,+&! %&−,∗!∃,!∋!Β−Α!+(!∋! 1)+6∃%∃+,%!
+(!∋!/−Β!−&!−)∋!+,!∋!4++Χ%
!!
Κ&!∃%!∋)∋(+)∋!,∋∃∋)!#∋)∋!,+)!∋)∋!−&!∋!Η+,≅)∋%%! −&!∋,−0&∋∗!∋!Η∃6∃/! η∃≅#&%!Ι0&! ∃,!:χαΝ!
−,∗!0#+%∋! &+!∃,0/3∗∋! %∋Σ!−%!−! 1)+#∃4∃&∋∗!4−%∃%! (+)!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! Ο,+!7−&&∋)! Β#Α!∃&!
∗∃∗!%+Ρ!7−Α!,+&!#−6∋!)∋−/∃Ζ∋∗! +)!3,∗∋)%&++∗!∋! (3//!%0+1∋!+(! ∋!Β+)∗%!∃&!0#+%∋∋∗%!∀#∋!
0+3)&! %∋&! (+)! +∋)! ∃,%&−,0∋%! ∃,! Β#∃0#! ∋! Μ31)∋7∋! Η+3)&! )∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗! ∀∃&/∋! =ΚΚκ%! 1)+#∃4∃&∃+,!
!
!
!
∃Ν!
!
−≅−∃,%&! %∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 7−Α! 4∋! 6∃+/−&∋∗! ∃,! Β−Α%! −&! Η+,≅)∋%%! ∃,! :χαΝ! 7−Α! ,+&! #−6∋!
−,&∃0∃1−&∋∗..∋
!!
Π!
Hively offers two approaches in support of her contention that “sex discrimination” includes
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,0+71−)−&∃6∋!
method in which we attempt to isolate the significance of the plaintiff’s sex to the employer’s
∗∋0∃%∃+,>!#−%! %#∋!∗∋%0)∃4∋∗!−! %∃&3−&∃+,!∃,! Β#∃0#2! #+/∗∃,≅!−//! +∋)! ∃,≅%!0+,%&−,&! −,∗! 0#−,≅∃,≅!
+,/Α! #∋)! %∋Σ2! %#∋! Β+3/∗! #−6∋! 4∋∋,! &)∋−&∋∗! ∋! %−7∋! Β−Α]! ∀#∋! %∋0+,∗! )∋/∃∋%! +,! ∋! 8+=(,?∗ =Μ∗
Φ(∋?(,(&2!_γγ!Τ:!Ο:χα;Ρ2!/∃,∋!+(!0−%∋%2!Β#∃0#!%#∋!−)≅3∋%!1)+&∋0&!#∋)!)∃≅#&!&+!−%%+0∃−&∋!∃,&∃7−&∋/Α!
Β∃!−!1∋)%+,!+(!∋!%−7∋!%∋Σ∗∃((∋)%!%+7∋Β#−&2!4+!−6∋,3∋%!∋,∗!31!∃,!∋!
%−7∋!1/−0∋>!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,
!!
!
:!
It is critical, in applying the comparative method, to be sure that only the variable of the plaintiff’s
%∋Σ!∃%!−//+Β∋∗!&+!0#−,≅∋(3,∗−7∋,&−/!ι3∋%&∃+,!∃%!,+&!Β#∋∋)!−!/∋%4∃−,!∃%!4∋∃,≅!&)∋−&∋∗!4∋&&∋)!
+)!Β+)%∋! −,! ≅−Α! 7∋,2! 4∃%∋Σ3−/%2! +)! &)−,%%∋Σ3−/%2! 4∋0−3%∋! %30#! −! 0+71−)∃%+,!%#∃(&%!&++! 7−,Α!
1∃∋0∋%!−&!+,0∋
∋!0+71/−∃,−,&!−,∗!∋!0+71−)−&+)!−,∗!%!+4%03)∋%!∋!Χ∋Α!1+∃,&—Β#∋&her the complainant’s
1)+&∋0&∋∗!0#−)−0&∋)∃%&∃0!1/−Α∋∗!−!)+/∋!∃,!∋!−∗6∋)%∋!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∋0∃%∃+,
73%&!3%∋!∃%!−!%∃&3−&∃+,!∃,!Β#∃0#!Ψ∃6∋/Α!∃%!−!7−,2!43&!∋6∋)Α∃,≅!∋/%∋!%&−Α%!∋!%−7∋>!∃,!1−)&∃03/−)2!
∋!%∋Σ!+)!≅∋,∗∋)!+(!∋!1−)&,∋)
!!
Ψ∃6∋/Α!−//∋≅∋%!−&!∃(!%#∋!#−∗!4∋∋,!−!7−,!7−))∃∋∗!&+!−!Β+7−,!Ο+)!/∃6∃,≅!Β∃!−!Β+7−,2!+)!∗−&∃,≅!
−!Β+7−,Ρ!−,∗!∋6∋)Α∃,≅!∋/%∋!#−∗!%&−Α∋∗!∋!%−7∋2! Κ6Α!∀∋0#!Β+3/∗!,+&!#−6∋!)∋(3%∋∗!&+!1)+7+&∋!
#∋)!−,∗!Β+3/∗!,+&!#−6∋!(∃)∋∗!#∋)∋!1#)−%∋!()+7! ς7&,∃2!Κ6Α!∀∋0#!∃%!∗∃%−∗6−,&−≅∃,≅!
#∋)!Λ∃4&−∀∃∗ ∀5∃∗(∀∗ &∗ ϑ+Α&, ∃,! ∋!0+71/−∃,&! #∃,&%! −&!Κ6Α! ∀∋0#!#−%!−,! −,&∃.7−))∃−≅∋!
1+/∃0Α!−&!∋Σ&∋,∗%!&+!#∋&∋)+%∋Σ3−/!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1%2!+)!(+)!−&!7−&&∋)!∋6∋,!−,!−,&∃.1−)&,∋)%#∃1!1+/∃0Α!
−&!∃%!≅∋,∗∋).,∋3&)−/
!!
=∃∋Β∋∗!)+3≅#!∋!/∋,%!+(!∋!≅∋,∗∋)!,+,.0+,(+)7∃&Α!/∃,∋!+(!0−%∋%2!Ψ∃6∋/Α!)∋1)∋%∋,&%!∋!3/&∃7−&∋!
0−%∋!+(!(−∃/3)∋!&+!0+,(+)7!&+!∋!(∋7−/∋!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋!Ο−&!/∋−%&!−%!3,∗∋)%&++∗!∃,!−!1/−0∋!%30#!−%!7+∗∋),!
Ι7∋)∃0−2!Β#∃0#!6∃∋Β%! #∋&∋)+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α!−%! ∋!,+)7! −,∗!+∋)! (+)7%!+(! %∋Σ3−/∃&Α!−%! ∋Σ0∋1&∃+,−/Ρ>!
%#∋!∃%!,+&! #∋&∋)+%∋Σ3−/∗∋%0)∃4∋∗!∋!/∃,∋! 4∋&Β∋∋,!−!≅∋,∗∋)!,+,0+,(+)7∃&Α!0/−∃7!−,∗!
+,∋!4−%∋∗!+,!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!−%!≅+%%−7∋).thin; we conclude that it does not exist at all. Hively’s
0/−∃7!∃%!,+!∗∃((∋)∋,&!()+7!∋!0/−∃7%!4)+3≅#&!4Α!Β+7∋,!Β#+!Β∋)∋!)∋Ξ∋0&∋∗!(+)!Ξ+4%!∃,!&)−∗∃&∃+,−//Α!
7−/∋!Β+)Χ1/−0∋%2!%30#! −%! (∃)∋! ∗∋1−)&7∋,&%2! 0+,%&)30&∃+,2! −,∗! 1+/∃0∃,≅ ∀#∋! ∋71/+Α∋)%! ∃,! +%∋!
0−%∋%!Β∋)∋!1+/∃0∃,≅!∋!4+3,∗−)∃∋%!+(!Β#−&!Ξ+4%!+)!4∋#−6∃+)%!∋Α!(+3,∗!−00∋1&−4/∋!(+)!−!Β+7−,!
Ο+)!∃,!%+7∋!0−%∋%2!(+)!−!7−,Ρ
!!
!
!
!
∃Ο!
!
∀#∃%!Β−%!∋!0)∃&∃0−/!1+∃,&!−&!∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!Β−%!7−Χ∃,≅!∃,!ο≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃∗=Κ+3Ε(,∀
Ι,∗! ∋6∋,! 4∋(+)∋! Κ+3Ε(,∀2! 0+3)&%!#−∗! (+3,∗! %∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! ∃,! %∃&3−&∃+,%!Β#∋)∋!Β+7∋,!
Β∋)∋!)∋%∃%&∃,≅!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃0−/!)+/∋%−%!:χ;:2!∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&!#∋/∗!−&!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!∗+∋%!
,+&!1∋)7∃&!−,!∋71/+Α∋)!&+!)∋(3%∋!&+!#∃)∋!Β+7∋,!Β∃!1)∋.%0#++/.−≅∋!0#∃/∗)∋,2!43&!,+&!7∋,≅5(77(3∀∗
=Μ∗%&∋6(,∗%&∋(∃66&∗ 2!Ν99! Τ Ο:χ;:Ρ ∋!%−7∋!&∃7∋2! ∃%!0+3)&! #∋/∗!−&!∀∃&/∋!
VII “strike[s] at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex
stereotypes,” #3∋+?(∀∗ =Μ∗ς,(6∃)∗ 2(∋∗8(,∃∀/∗ !,4Μ2!ΝΝΝ!⊥<8∗!::χΝ2!::χγ! Ο;!Η∃) :χ;:Ρ2!−,∗! %&)30Χ!
∗+Β,!−! )3/∋! )∋ι3∃)∃,≅! +,/Α! ∋! (∋7−/∋!∋71/+Α∋∋%!&+!4∋!3,7−))∃∋∗ Κ,! 4+! +%∋! ∃,%&−,0∋%2!∋!
employer’s rule did not affect every woman in the workforce. Just so here: a policy that
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋%!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗+∋%!,+&!−((∋0&!∋6∋)Α!Β+7−,2!+)!∋6∋)Α!7−,2!43&!∃&!
∃%!4−%∋∗!+,!−%%371&∃+,%!−4+3&!∋!1)+1∋)!4∋#−6∃+)!(+)!%+7∋+,∋!+(!−!≅∃6∋,!%∋Σ∀#∋!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&+)Α!
behavior does not exist without taking the victim’s biological sex (either as observed at birth or as
7+∗∃(∃∋∗2!∃,!∋!0−%∋!+(!&)−,%%∋Σ3−/%Ρ! ∃,&+!−00+3,&Α!∗∃%0+7(+)&2!∗∃%−11)+6−/2! +)!Ξ+4!∗∋0∃%∃+,!
4−%∋∗!+,!∋! (−0&!−&! ∋!0+71/−∃,−,&—Β+7−,!+)!7−,—∗)∋%%∋%!∗∃((∋)∋,&/Α2!%1∋−Χ%! ∗∃((∋)∋,&/Α2!
+)!∗−&∋%!+)!7−))∃∋%!−!%−7∋.%∋Σ!1−)&,∋)2!∃%!−!)∋−0&∃+,!13)∋/Α!−,∗!%∃71/Α!4−%∋∗!+,!%∋Σ ∀#−&!7∋−,%!
that it falls within Title VII’s prohibition ag−∃,%&! %∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2!∃(! ∃&!−((∋0&%! ∋71/+Α7∋,&!∃,!
+,∋!+(!∋!%1∋0∃(∃∋∗!Β−Α%
!!
!
8!
Ι%! Β∋! ,+&∋∗! ∋−)/∃∋)2! Ψ∃6∋/Α! −/%+! #−%! −)≅3∋∗! −&! −0&∃+,! 4−%∋∗! +,! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∃%! %∋Σ!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!3,∗∋)!∋!−%%+0∃−&∃+,−/!∋+)ΑΚ&!∃%!,+Β!−00∋1&∋∗!−&!−!1∋)%+,!Β#+!∃%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!
−≅−∃,%&!4∋0−3%∋!+(!∋!1)+&∋0&∋∗!0#−)−0&∋)∃%&∃0!+(!+,∋!Β∃!Β#+7!%#∋! −%%+0∃−&∋%!∃%!−0&3−//Α!4∋∃,≅!
∗∃%−∗6−,&−≅∋∗! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! #∋)! +Β,! &)−∃&%8+=(,?2! ∃,! Β#∃0#! ∋!
Supreme Court held that “restricting t#∋!()∋∋∗+7!&+!7−))Α!%+/∋/Α!4∋0−3%∋!+(!)−0∃−/!0/−%%∃(∃0−&∃+,%!
the argument that miscegenation statutes do not violate equal protection because they “punish
∋ι3−lly both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage.” !)Μ!−&!γΕ#∋,!∗∋−/∃,≅!
with a statute containing racial classifications, it wrote, “the fact of equal application does not
∃773,∃Ζ∋! ∋! %&−&3&∋! ()+7! ∋! 6∋)Α! #∋−6Α! 43)∗∋,! +(! Ξ3%&∃(∃cation” required by the Fourteenth
Ι7∋,∗7∋,&!(+)!/∃,∋%!∗)−Β,!4Α!)−0∋!)
!!
Κ,!∋((∋0&2!4+! 1−)&∃∋%!&+! ∋!∃,&∋))−0∃−/! 7−))∃−≅∋!Β∋)∋! 4∋∃,≅!∗∋,∃∋∗!∃71+)&−,&!)∃≅#&%!4 Α!∋!%&−&∋!
%+/∋/Α! +,! ∋! 4−%∃%! +(! ∋∃)! )−0∋
∋Σ−71/∋2! ∃,! ≅&∋∋∗ =Μ∗ Ι++)Α∃,∗ +Γ∗ 65∃∗ Ι+∋7)∗ 8(Γ∃∗ !,∀Μ∗< +Μ2! ;χ:! ⊥<8∗! γγγ!Ο::! Η ∃)
[/∋6∋,!Η∃)03∃&!0+,%∃∗∋)∋∗!−!0−%∋!∃,! Β#∃0#!−!Β#∃&∋! 7−,!ΟΛ−))Ρ!7−))∃∋∗! &+!−,!Ι()∃0−, .Ι7∋)∃0−,!
Β+7−,!Β−%!∗∋,∃∋∗!∋71/+Α7∋,&!4Α!−,!∃,%3)−,0∋!0+71−,Α!4∋0−3%∋!+(!#∃%!∃,&∋))−0∃−/!7−))∃−≅∋
%3∋∗!3,∗∋)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ2!43&! ∋!∗∃%&)∃0&!0+3)&!∗∃%7∃%%∋∗!∋!0+71/−∃,&!+,!∋!≅)+3,∗! −&!∃&!(−∃/∋∗!&+!
describe discrimination on the basis of race. The court of appeals reversed. It held that “[w]here a
1/−∃,&∃((!0/−∃7%! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 4−%∋∗! 31+,!−,!∃,&∋))−0∃−/! 7−))∃−≅∋! +)! −%%+0∃−&∃+,2!#∋! −//∋≅∋%2! 4Α!
∗∋(∃,∃&∃+,2!−&!#∋!#−%!4∋∋,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋∗!−≅−∃,%&!4∋0−3%∋!+(!5(∀!race.” !)Μ!−&!γχ8
!!
!
!
!
∃Μ!
!
∀#∋!(−0&!−&!Β∋!,+Β!−00∋1&!∃%!−,−/Α%∃%!&∋//%!3%!,+∃,≅2!#+Β∋6∋)2!−4+3&!∋!Β+)/∗!∃,!:χα;2!Β#∋,!
8+=(,?!)∋−0#∋∗!∋!Μ31)∋7∋!Η+3)&∗∃%%∋,&!∃71/∃∋%!−&!Β∋!−)∋!−∗+1&∃,≅!−,!−,−0#)+,∃%&∃0!6∃∋Β!
+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ2!∋,−0&∋∗!Ξ3%&!)∋∋!Α∋−)%!4∋(+)∋!8+=(,?, but it is the dissent’s understanding of 8+=(,?!
−,∗! ∋! 7∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,! /−Β%! −&! ∃%! −,! −,−0#)+,∃%78+=(,?! −,∗! ∋! /−&∋)! 0−%∋%! Β∋!
7∋,&∃+,∋∗2!%+0∃∋&Α!3,∗∋)%&−,∗%!,+Β!−&!%30#!/−Β%!−)∋!Ο−,∗!−/Β−Α%!Β∋)∋Ρ!∃,#∋)∋,&/Α!)−0∃%&
+(!:χα;! Ο−,∗! %!−%! +(! :χαΝΡ2! =∃)≅∃,∃−!−,∗! :! +∋)! %&−&∋%!#−∗! −,&∃.7∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,! /−Β%! +,!∋!
4++Χ%8+=(,?2! _γγ! Τ
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&+)Α!4∋0−3%∋!∋!/∋≅−/!+4%&−0/∋! −((∋0&∋∗!Λ+65!1−)&,∋)% Η+3)&!∃,!8+=(,?! )∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗!
−&!∋ι3−/!−11/∃0−&∃+,!+(!−!/−Β!−&!1)+#∃4∃&∋∗! 0+,∗30&!+,/Α!4∋&Β∋∋,!7∋74∋)%!+(!∗∃((∋)∋,&! )−0∋%!
∗∃∗!,+&!%−6∋!∃&#∋!)−0∋!+(!+,∋!1−)&,∋)!7−∗∋!−!∗∃((∋)∋,0∋!∃,!∗∋&∋)7∃,∃,≅!∋! /∋≅−/∃&Α!+(!
the conduct, and so the law rested on “distinctions drawn according to race,” which were
3,Ξ3%&∃(∃−4/∋!−,∗!)−0∃−//Α!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&+)Α8+=(,?2!_γγ!Τ::#∋)∋Β∋!Β∋)∋!&+!0#−,≅∋!
∋!%∋Σ!+(!+,∋!1−)&,∋)! ∃,!−!/∋%4∃−,!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃12!∋!+3&0+7∋!Β+3/∗!4∋!∗∃((∋)∋,&∀#∃%!)∋6∋−/%!−&!
∋!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!)∋%&%!+,!∗∃%&∃,0&∃+,%!∗)−Β,!−00+)∗∃,≅!&+!%∋Σ
!!
∀#∋!∗∃%%∋,&!Β+3/∗!∃,%&∋−∗!#−6∋!3%!0+71−)∋!∋!&)∋−&7∋,&!+(!7∋,!Β#+!−)∋!−&&)−0&∋∗!&+!7∋74∋)%!+(!
∋!7−/∋!%∋Σ!Β∃!∋!&)∋−&7∋,&!+(!Β+7∋,!Β#+!−)∋!−&&)−0&∋∗!&+!7∋74∋)%!+(!∋!(∋7−/∋!%∋Σ2!−,∗!−%Χ!
Β#∋∋)!−,!∋71/+Α∋)!&)∋−&%!∋!7∋,!∗∃((∋)∋,&/Α!()+7!∋!Β+7∋,%∋&&∃,≅!&+!+,∋!%∃∗∋!∋!
/+≅∃0−/!(−//−0Α! ∃,6+/6∋∗2!8+=(,?! %#+Β%! Β#Α!∃%! (−∃/% Κ,!∋! 0+,&∋Σ&!+(! ∃,&∋))−0∃−/!)∋/−&∃+,%#∃1%2!
we could just as easily hold constant a variable such as “sexual or romantic attraction to persons
of a different race” and ask whether an employer treated persons of ∗∃((∋)∋,&!)−0∋%!Β#+!%#−)∋∗!−&!
1)+1∋,%∃&Α!∋! %−7∋ ∀#−&! ∃%!1)∋0∃%∋/Α!∋! )3/∋! −&! 8+=(,?!)∋Ξ∋0&∋∗2! −,∗! %+! &++!73%&!Β∋2! ∃,! ∋!
0+,&∋Σ&!+(!%∋Σ3−/!−%%+0∃−&∃+,%
!!
∀#∋!(−0&!−&!8+=(,?∗ο−,∗!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!0−%∋%π!∗∋−/!Β∃!)−0∃−/!−%%+0∃−&∃+,%2!−%!+11+%∋∗!&+!+%∋!4−%∋∗!
+,! 0+/+)2! ,−&∃+,−/! +)∃≅∃,2! )∋/∃≅∃+,2! +)! %∋Σ2! ∃%! +(! ,+! 7+7∋,&
∗∃%&∃,0&∃+,2!(+)! ∃%!13)1+%∋2! −7+,≅!∋! ∗∃((∋)∋,&! 6−)∃∋&∃∋%!+(! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!∃&! −∗∗)∋%%∋%—−! (−0&!
)∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗!4Α!∋! Κ+3Ε(,∀! 1/3)−/∃&Α Τ−&!8ΝΝ! , 7∋−,%!−&!&+!∋! ∋Σ&∋,&!−&!
∋!%&−&3&∋! 1)+#∃4∃&%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! +,! ∋!4−%∃%! +(!∋! )−0∋! +(!%+7∋+,∋! Β∃!Β#+7!∋! 1/−∃,&∃((!
−%%+0∃−&∋%2!∃&!−/%+! 1)+#∃4∃&%!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%! +(!∋!,−&∃+,−/!+)∃≅∃,2!+)! ∋!0+/+)2!+)! ∋!
)∋/∃≅∃+,2!+)!Ο−%!)∋/∋6−,&!#∋)∋Ρ!∋!%∋Σ! +(!∋!−%%+0∃−&∋ 0−&∋≅+)Α!∃%!∃,6+/6∋∗2! ∋!
∋%%∋,0∋!+(!∋! 0/−∃7!∃%! −&!∋!37&(,6(ΓΓ!Β+3/∗!,+&!4∋!%3((∋)∃,≅! ∋!−∗6∋)%∋!−0&∃+,! #−∗!#∃%! +)!#∋)!
%∋Σ2!)−0∋2!0+/+)2!,−&∃+,−/!+)∃≅∃,2!+)!)∋/∃≅∃+,!4∋∋,!∗∃((∋)∋,&
!!
!
000&
Today’s decision must be understood against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s decisions, not
+,/Α!∃,!∋!(∃∋/∗!+(!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2! 43&!−/%+!∃,!∋!−)∋−!+(! 4)+−∗∋)!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!
∋! 4−%∃%! +(! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,
Κ+3Ε(,∀!−,∗!Η,4&7∃>+Α∃∋∗=Μ∗Β=&,∀2!:;!Τ
Β#∃0#! ∋! Η+3)&! #∋/∗! −&! −! 1)+6∃%∃+,! +(! ∋! Η+/+)−∗+! Η+,%&∃&3&∃+,! (+)4∃∗∗∃,≅! −,Α! +)≅−,! +(!
government in the state from taking action designed to protect “homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual”
1∋)%+,%2!()Μ!−&!α8Ν2!6∃+/−&∋∗!∋!(∋∗∋)−/![ι3−/!Λ)+&∋0&∃+,!Η/−3%∋>+Α∃∋!Β−%!(+//+Β∋∗!4Α!8&ϑ∋∃,4∃∗
!
!
!
%Ι!
!
=Μ∗ ;∃Ο&∀2! _χ! Τ
#+7+%∋Σ3−/!∃,&∃7−0Α!4∋&Β∋∋,!0+,%∋,&∃,≅!−∗3/&%!6∃+/−&∋∗!∋!/∃4∋)&Α!1)+6∃%∃+,!+(!∋!δ3∋!Λ)+0∋%%!
Η/−3%∋ς,(6∃)∗ #6&6∃∀∗ =Μ∗ Ι(,)∀+∋2! :__! Μ
0+,%&∃&3&∃+,−/∃&Α!+(! ∋! 1−)&!+(!∋! δ∋(∋,%∋! +(!∆−))∃−≅∋! Ι0&! Οδβ∆ΙΡ!−&!∋Σ0/3∗∋∗! −! %−7∋.%∋Σ!
partner from the definition of “spouse” in other federal statutes. The Court held that this part of
DOMA “violate[d] basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal
Φovernment.” !)Μ!at 2693. Finally, the Court’s decision in ΗΛ∃∋?∃Γ∃772!∀−3∋&2!#∋/∗!−&!∋!)∃≅#&!&+!
7−))Α!∃%!−!(3,∗−7∋,&−/!/∃4∋)&Α!)∃≅#&2! 1)+&∋0&∋∗!4Α!∋! δ3∋!Λ)+0∋%%! −,∗![ι3−/!Λ)+&∋0&∃+,! Η/−3%∋%!
+(!∋!⊥+3)&∋∋,!Ι7∋,∗7∋,&. The Court wrote that “[i]t is now clear that the
0#−//∋,≅∋∗!/−Β%!43)∗∋,!∋!/∃4∋)&Α!+(!%−7∋.%∋Σ!0+31/∋%2!−,∗!∃&!73%&!4∋!(3)∋)!−0Χ,+Β/∋∗≅∋∗!−&!
they abridge central precepts of equality.” !)Μ∗
∗
!!
!!
Ε∋!0/+%∋!4Α! ,+&∃,≅!−&! Β∋!#−6∋!∗∋0∃∗∋∗!+,/Α!∋! ∃%%3∋!13&! 4∋(+)∋!3%∗∃&∃+,−/!0+71/∃0−&∃+,%!
0−,!4∋!%−6∋∗!(+)!−,+∋)!∗−Α2!Β#∋,!∋Α!−)∋!−0&3−//Α!∃,6+/6∋∗!∃,!∋!0−%∋∀∋0#!∗∃∗!,+&!0+,&∋,∗2!
(+)!∋Σ−71/∋2! −&! ∃&!Β−%! −! )∋/∃≅∃+3%! ∃,%&∃&3&∃+,!−,∗! ∋! 1+%∃&∃+,%! ∃&!∗ ∋,∃∋∗!&+! Ψ∃6∋/Α! )∋/−&∋∗!&+!−!
)∋/∃≅∃+3%! 7∃%%∃+,
7∋−,∃,≅!+(! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! ∃,! ∋!0+,&∋Σ&!+(! ∋! 1)+6∃%∃+,!+(!%+0∃−/! +)! 134/∃0! %∋)6∃0∋% #+/∗!
+,/Α!−&!−!1∋)%+,!Β#+!−//∋≅∋%!−&!%#∋!∋Σ1∋)∃∋,0∋∗!∋71/+Α7∋,&!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!#∋)!
%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!#−%!13&!(+)!−!0−%∋!+(!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!(+)!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!13)1+%∋%
wrong to dismiss Hively’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The judgment of the district!0+3)&!
∃%!η[=[ηΜ[δ!−,∗!∋!0−%∋!∃%!η[∆Ι5δ[δ!(+)!(3)∋)!1)+0∋∋∗∃,≅%
!!
&
ο∀#∋!0+,03))∃,≅!+1∃,∃+,%!4Α!Γ3∗≅∋!Λ+%,∋)!−,∗!Γ3∗≅∋!⊥/−37!−)∋!+7∃&&∋∗π!!
&
ΜΘφ[Μ2!Η∃)03∃&!Γ3∗≅∋2!Β∃!Β#+7!ΠΙΤ[η!−,∗!φΙ55[2!Η∃)03∃&!Γ3∗≅∋%2!Ξ+∃,2!∗∃%%∋,&∃,≅
!
!
η∋%1∋0&!(+)!∋!0+,%&)−∃,&%!∃71+%∋∗!+,! ∋!Ξ3∗∃0∃−)Α!4Α!−!%Α%&∋7!+(!Β)∃&&∋,!/−Β! 73%&!4∋≅∃,!Β∃!
(∃∗∋/∃&Α!&+!∋!&)−∗∃&∃+,−/!(∃)%&!1)∃,0∃1/∋!+(!%&−&3&+)Α!∃,&∋)1)∋&−&∃+,>!Ε#∋,!−!%&−&3&∋!%311/∃∋%!∋!)3/∋!
+(!∗∋0∃%∃+,2!+3)! )+/∋!∃%! &+!≅∃6∋! ∋((∋0&!&+! ∋!∋,−0&∋∗! &∋Σ&2!∃,&∋)1)∋&∃,≅! ∋!%&−&3&+)Α!/−,≅3−≅∋!−%! −!
)∋−%+,−4/∋!1∋)%+,! Β+3/∗!#−6∋!3,∗∋)%&++∗! ∃&!−&! ∋! &∃7∋!+(! ∋,−0&7∋,& Ε∋!−)∋! ,+&! −3+)∃Ζ∋∗!&+!
∃,(3%∋!∋!&∋Σ&!Β∃!−!,∋Β!+)!3,0+,6∋,&∃+,−/!7∋−,∃,≅!+)!&+!31∗−&∋!∃&!&+!)∋%1+,∗!&+!0#−,≅∋∗!%+0∃−/2!
∋0+,+7∃02!+)!1+/∃&∃0−/!0+,∗∃&∃+,%
!!
!
&
!
!
!
%∀!
!
0&
!
Ι!
οΙπ%!−!7−&&∋)!+(!∃,&∋)1)∋&∃6∋!7∋+∗2!Κ!−≅)∋∋!Β∃!7Α!0+//∋−≅3∋%!−&!∋!%0+1∋!+(!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!∃%!,+&!
/∃7∃&∋∗!4Α!∋!%34Ξ∋0&∃6∋!∃,&∋,&∃+,%!+(!∋!∋,−0&∃,≅!/∋≅∃%/−&+)%∃&!∃,!
#∋)!∋/∋≅−,&!+1∃,∃+,!(+)!∋!∋,!4−,0!majority, the expectations of the enacting legislators “cannot
stand in the way of the provisions of the law that are on the books.” !
!!
!
Π!
∀#−&! ∃%! Β#∋)∋! +3)! −≅)∋∋7∋,&! ∋,∗%
discrimination on a thought experiment drawn from the “tried.−,∗.true” comparative method of
1)++(!+(&∋,!3%∋∗!4Α!1/−∃,&∃((%!∃,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0−%∋%!)Μ!−&!1∀#∋!7−Ξ+)∃&Α!−/%+!∃,6+Χ∋%!8+=(,?∗
=Μ∗Φ(∋?(,(&, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court’s historic decision striking down Virginia’s
miscegenation laws under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as well as cases
∃,6+/6∃,≅!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅2!7+%&!1)+7∃,∋,&/Α!≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃∗=Μ∗Κ+3Ε(,∀2!Νχ9!ΤΟ:χγχΡ
!!
Π3&!∋!−,−/Α%∃%!73%&! 4∋≅∃,!Β∃! ∋!%&−&3&+)Α!&∋Σ&ς!∃&! /−)≅∋/Α!∋,∗%! ∋)∋!&++ Κ%!∃&! ∋6∋,!)∋7+&∋/Α!
1/−3%∃4/∋!−&!∃,!:χαΝ2!Β#∋,!∀∃&/∋!=ΚΚ!Β−%!−∗+1&∋∗2!−!)∋−%+,−4/∋!1∋)%+,!0+71∋&∋,&!∃,!∋![,≅/∃%#!
language would have understood that a law banning employment discrimination “because of sex”
−/%+!4−,,∋∗!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!4∋0−3%∋!+(!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,]!∀#∋!−,%Β∋)!∃%!,+2!+(!0+3)%∋!,+&
!!
“It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that, unless ot#∋)Β∃%∋!∗∋(∃,∋∗2!Β+)∗%!Β∃//!4∋!
interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” #&,)(Γ∃∋∗ =Μ∗ ςΜ#Μ∗ #6∃∃7∗
, 134 S. Ct. 870, 876 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The word “contemporary”
−%! 3%∋∗! #∋)∋! 7∋−,%! 4+,6∃Α3+∋&,∃+−∀∗ ϑ(65∗ the statute’s enactment, not “contemporary” as in
“now.” !)Μ!−&!γ;α–;;ς!∀∃∃∗&7∀+∗[&4Ε∀+,∗=Μ∗:7(66∗Ν∗9&(,∃∀/∗≅Μ2!γ__!⊥<_>
Ο0∃&∃,≅!#&,)(Γ∃∋!and explaining that statutory interpretation “look[s] to the meaning of the word[s]
−&!∋!time the statute was enacted”). The interpretive inquiry looks to the original public meaning
+(!∋!%&−&3&+)Α!&∋Σ&
!!
Title VII does not define discrimination “because of sex.” In common, ordinary usage in 1964 —
−,∗!,+Β2!(+)!−&!7−&&∋)—the word “sex” mea,%!4∃+/+≅∃0−//Α!Α&7∃!+)!Γ∃Α&7∃ς!∃&!∗+∋%!,+&!−/%+!)∋(∋)!
&+! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,#∃∃/∗ ∃Μ?Μ2! #∃Ο2! ∀Ψ[! Ι∆[ηΚΗΙ5! Ψ[ηΚ∀ΙΦ[! δΚΗ∀Κβ5ΙηΘ! β⊥! ∀Ψ[!
ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1st ed. 1969) (defining “sex” as “[t]he property or quality by which
+)≅−,∃%7%! −)∋! 0/−%%∃(∃∋∗! −00+)∗∃,≅! &+! ∋∃)! )∋1)+∗30&∃6∋! (3,0&∃+,%οςπ! ο∋π∃∋)! +(! &Β+! ∗∃6∃%∃+,%2!
∗∋%∃≅,−&∋∗! Α&7∃! −,∗! Γ∃Α&7∃, of this classification”); #∃Ο2! 5[Ε! βτ⊥βηδ! Ι∆[ηΚΗΙ5!
DICTIONARY (3d ed. 2010) (defining “sex” as “either of the two main categories (male and
(∋7−/∋Ρ! ∃,&+! Β#∃0#! #37−,%! −,∗! 7−,Α! +∋)! /∃6∃,≅! ∃,≅%! −)∋! ∗∃6∃∗∋∗! +,! ∋! 4−%∃%! +(! ∋∃)!
!
!
!
%#!
!
reproductive functions”); #∃Ο2!∀Ψ[! Ι∆[ηΚΗΙ5! Ψ[ηΚ∀ΙΦ[! δ[Μφ! δ ΚΗ∀Κβ5ΙηΘ!Ο! ∋∗
2013) (defining “sex” as “[e]ither of the two divisions, female and male, by which most organisms
−)∋!0/−%%∃(∃∋∗!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!∋∃)!)∋1)+∗30&∃6∋!+)≅−,%!−,∗!(3,0&∃+,%οςπ!ο&π#∋!0+,∗∃&∃+,!+)!0#−)−0&∋)!
of being female or male”).!
!!
∀+!−!(/3∋,&!%1∋−Χ∋)!+(!∋![,≅/∃%#!/−,≅3−≅∋—∋,! −,∗!,+Β—∋! +)∗∃,−)Α!7∋−,∃,≅! +(!∋! Β+)∗!
“sex” does not fairly include the concept of “sexual orientation.” The two terms are never used
∃,&∋)0#−,≅∋−4/Α2!−,∗!∋!/−&&∋)!∃%!,+&!%34%37∋∗!Β∃∃,!∋!(+)7∋)ς!∋)∋!∃%!,+!+6∋)/−1!∃,!7∋−,∃,≅
Contrary to the majority’s vivid rhetorical claim, it does not take “considerable calisthenics” to
%∋1−)−&∋!∋!&Β+1/−∃,/Α!∗∋%0)∃4∋!∗∃((∋)∋,&!&)−∃&%2!−,∗!∋!%∋1−)−&∋!−,∗!∗∃%&∃,0&!7∋−,∃,≅!
+(!∋−0#!&∋)7!∃%!∋−%∃/Α!≅)−%1∋∗More specifically to the point here, discrimination “because of sex”
∃%! ,+&! )∋−%+,−4/Α! 3,∗∋)%&++∗! &+! ∃,0/3∗∋! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! 4−%∋∗! +,! %∋Σ3−/! +)∃∋,&−&∃+,2! −! ∗∃((∋)∋,&!
∃773&−4/∋! 0#−)−0&∋)∃%&∃0
∋7!4Α!%∋Σ
!!
<<
!
Η!
∀#∃%! 0+77+,%∋,%∋! 3,∗∋)%&−,∗∃,≅! ∃%! 0+,(∃)7∋∗! 4Α! ∋! /−,≅3−≅∋! Η+,≅)∋%%! 3%∋%! Β#∋,! ∃&! )+∃∀!
/∋≅∃%/−&∋!−≅−∃,%&!%∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,∋Σ−71/∋2!∋!=∃+/∋,0∋!Ι≅−∃,%&!Ε+7∋,!Ι0&!
1)+#∃4∃&%!(3,∗∋∗!1)+≅)−7%!−,∗!−0&∃6∃ties from discriminating “on the basis of actual or perceived
)−0∋2!0+/+)2!)∋/∃≅∃+,2!,−&∃+,−/!+)∃≅∃,2!∀∃Ο2!≅∋,∗∋)!∃∗∋,&∃&Α2!∀∃Ο−&7∗+∋(∃,6&6(+,, or disability.” 42
Τλ!:_χ8Ο4ΡΟ:_ΡΟΙΡ!Ο∋71#−%∋%! −∗∗∋∗Ρ Κ(!%∋Σ! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! ∃%! 0+77+,/Α! 3,∗∋)%&++∗! &+!
∋,0+71−%%! %∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2! ∋,! /∃%&∃,≅! ∋! &Β+! 0−&∋≅+)∃∋%! %∋1−)−&∋/Α2! −%! ∃%!
%&−&3&∋!∗+∋%2!∃%!,∋∋∗/∋%%!%3)1/3%−≅∋Ψ−&∋!Η)∃7∋%!Ι0&!∃%!−,+∋)!∋Σ−71/∋
#∋∃≅#&∋,∋∗!13,∃%#7∋,&!(+)! 0−3%∃,≅!+)! −&&∋71&∃,≅!&+! 0−3%∋!bodily injury “to any person, because
+(!∋!−0&3−/!+)!1∋)0∋∃6∋∗!)∋/∃≅∃+,2!,−&∃+,−/!+)∃≅∃,2!?∃,)∃∋2!∀∃Ο−&7∗+∋(∃,6&6(+,2!≅∋,∗∋)!∃∗∋,&∃&Α2!+)!
disability of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2)(A) (emphases added). !
!
!!
∀#∃%!3,∃(+)7∃&Α!+(!3%−≅∋!∃%!1+Β∋)(3/! +4Ξ∋0&∃6∋!∋6∃∗∋,0∋!−&! %∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!∃%!
4)+−∗/Α!)∋0+≅,∃Ζ∋∗!−%!−,!∃,∗∋1∋,∗∋,&!0−&∋≅+)Α!+(!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−,∗!∃%!,+6!%Α,+,Α7+3%!Β∃!%∋Σ!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,
!!
!
00&
∆Α!0+//∋−≅3∋%!∃,!∋!7−Ξ+)∃&Α!%31∋)(∃0∃−//Α!−0Χ,+Β/∋∗≅∋!ς7&,∃’s “truism” tha&!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!
is discrimination based on a person’s biological sex. As they see it, however, even if sex
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! ∃%! 3,∗∋)%&++∗! ∃,! ∋! +)∗∃,−)Α! Β−Α2! %∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,! ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,! (∀! %∋Σ!
discrimination because “it is actually impossible to ∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋!+,!∋!4−%∃%!+(!%∋Σ3−/!+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!
!
!
!
%∃!
!
without discriminating on the basis of sex.” !
!!
5+&!&)3∋ Ι,! ∋71/+Α∋)!Β#+! )∋(3%∋%! &+!#∃)∋!#+7+%∋Σ3−/%! ∃%! ,+&! ∗)−Β∃,≅!−! /∃,∋! 4−%∋∗!+,!∋! Ξ+4!
applicant’s sex. He is not excluding gay men because they are men −,∗!/∋%4∃−,%!4∋0−3%∋!∋Α!−)∋!
women. His discriminatory motivation is independent of and unrelated to the applicant’s sex.
Μ∋Σ∃%7!Ο7∃%−,∗)Α! −,∗! 7∃%+≅Α,ΑΡ! −,∗!#+7+1#+4∃−!−)∋! %∋1−)−&∋! Χ∃,∗%! +(!1)∋Ξ3∗∃0∋! −&! 0/−%%∃(Α!
1∋+1/∋! ∃,! ∗∃%&∃,0&! Β−Α%! 4−%∋∗! +,! ∗∃((∋)∋,&! ∃773&−4/∋! 0#−)−0&∋)∃%&∃0%
orientation discrimination doesn’t classify people by sex; it doesn’t draw male/female distinctions
43&!∃,%&∋−∗!&−)≅∋&%!#+7+%∋Σ3−/!7∋,!−,∗!Β+7∋,!(+)!#−)%#∋)!&)∋−&7∋,&!−,!#∋&∋)+%∋Σ3−/!7∋,!−,∗!
Β+7∋,
!!
000&
Ι!
∀#∋!7−Ξ+)∃&Α!−/%+! ∗)−Β%!+,! 8+=(,?, the Supreme Court’s iconic decision invalidating Virginia’s
7∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,! %&−&3&∋%! +,! ∋ι3−/.1)+&∋0&∃+,! ≅)+3,∗%8+=(,?
∆∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,!/−Β% !1/−∃,/ Α!∋71/+Α! ∃,6∃∗∃+3%! )−0∃−/! 0/−%%∃(∃0−&∃+,%ς! ∋Α! −)∋!∃,#∋ )∋,&/Α!)−0∃−//Α!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&+)Α∗∃((∋)∋,&!Χ∃,∗!
+(!4∃−%!−,!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,(+)7%!+(!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!0/−%%∃(Α!1∋+1/∋!4−%∋∗!+,!∗∃((∋)∋,&!
&)−∃&%!−,∗!%!−)∋!,+&!∋!%−7∋
!!
Κ,!8+=(,?2! =∃)≅∃,∃−!&)∃∋∗! &+! ∗∋(∋,∗!∃&%! −,&∃7∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,!)∋≅∃7∋! 4Α!∃,%∃%&∃,≅!−&! 7∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,!
%&−&3&∋%!∗+!,+&!−0&3−//Α!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∋!4−%∋∗!+,!)−0∋!4∋0−3%∋!4+!∋!4/−0Χ!−,∗!Β#∃&∋!%1+3%∋%!∃,!−,!
∃,&∋))−0∃−/!7−))∃−≅∋! −)∋!13,∃%#∋∗! ∋ι3−//Α Τ.S. at 8 (“[T]he State contends that, because its
7∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,!%&−&3&∋%!13,∃%#! ∋ι3−//Α!4+!∋! Β#∃&∋!−,∗!∋! 5∋≅)+!1−)&∃0∃1−,&%!∃,!−,!∃,&∋))−0∃−/!
7−))∃−≅∋2! ∋%∋! %&−&3&∋%2! ∗∋%1∃&∋! ∋∃)! )∋/∃−,0∋! +,! )−0∃−/! 0/−%%∃(∃0−&∃+,%ο2π! ∗+! ,+&! 0+,%&∃&3&∋! −,!
∃,6∃∗∃+3%!discrimination based upon race.”). The Supreme Court made short work of that specious
argument: “[W]e deal [here] with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal
−11/∃0−&∃+,!∗+∋%!,+&!∃773,∃Ζ∋!∋!%&−&3&∋ο%π!()+7!∋!6∋)Α!#∋−6Α!43)∗∋,!+(!Ξ3%&∃(∃0−&∃+,!Β#∃0#!∋!
Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.” !)Μ!−&!
χ
!!
The Court went on to explain that the “clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment
Β−%!&+!∋/∃7∃,−&∋!−//!+((∃0∃−/!state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.” !)Μ!−&!:9
The Court continued with this: “There can be no question but that Virginia’s miscegenation
%&−&3&∋%! )∋%&! %+/∋/Α! 31+,! ∗∃%&∃,0&∃+,%! ∗)−Β,! −00+)∗∃,≅!&+! )− 0∋
accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.” !)Μ!−&!::
“[p]enalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery,” ()Μ! −&! α, and are “designed to
7−∃,&−in White Supremacy,” ()Μ!at 11, the Court announced its holding: “There can be no doubt
−&!)∋%&)∃0&∃,≅! ∋! ()∋∋∗+7! &+! 7−))Α!%+/∋/Α! 4∋0−3%∋! +(! )−0∃−/!0/−%%∃(∃0−&∃+,%!6∃+/−&∋%! ∋! 0∋,&)−/!
meaning of the Equal Protection Clause,” ()Μ!−&!:8
!!
!
!
!
%%!
!
As these passages from the Court’s opinion make clear, 8+=(,?!)∋%&%!+,!∋!∃,∋%0−1−4/∋!&)3!−&!
7∃%0∋≅∋,−&∃+,! /−Β%! −)∋! ∃,#∋)∋,&/Α! )−0∃%&
%31∋)∃+)∃&Α! −,∗! 3%∋! )−0∃−/! 0/−%%∃(∃0−&∃+,%! &+Β−)∗! ∋! ∋,∗! +(! )−0∃−/! 13)∃&Α! −,∗! Β#∃&∋! %31)∋7−0Α
Μ∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,2!+,! ∋!+∋)! #−,∗2!∃%! ,+&!∃,#∋)∋,&/Α!∀∃Ο(∀6 −)≅3∋%!−&!
%∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−∃7%!&+!1)+7+&∋!+)!1∋)1∋&3−&∋!∋!%31)∋7−0Α!+(!+,∋!%∋Σ%#+)&2!
8+=(,?! ,∋∃∋)! 0+71∋/%! ,+)! %upports the majority’s decision to upend the long.%∋&&/∋∗!
3,∗∋)%&−,∗∃,≅!−&!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−,∗!%∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−)∋!∗∃%&∃,0&
!!
!
Π!
The majority also relies on cases involving sex stereotyping, most notably the Supreme Court’s
∗∋0∃%∃+,!∃,!≅∋(4∃∗Ι&6∃∋5+−∀∃∗=Μ∗Κ+3Ε(,∀0/−∃7!
+(!%∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!∃%!∃,∗∃%&∃,≅3∃%#−4/∋!()+7!−! 0/−∃7!∃,6+/6∃,≅!%∋Σ!%&∋)∋+&Α1∃,≅
Κ! ∗∃%−≅)∋∋Κ+3Ε(,∀! −/&∋)∋∗! ∋! &)−∗∃&∃+,−/! 3,∗∋)%&−,∗∃,≅! −&! %∋Σ3−/.+)∃∋,&−&∃+,!
∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!∃%!−!∗∃%&∃,0&!&Α1∋!+(!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,!−,∗!∃%!,+&!%Α,+,Α7+3%!Β∃!%∋Σ!∗∃%0)∃7∃,−&∃+,
!!
∀+!13&!∋!7−&&∋)!1/−∃,/Α2!#∋&∋)+%∋Σ3−/∃&Α!∃%!,+&!−!Γ∃Α&7∃!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋ς!∃&!∃%!,+&!−!Α&7∃!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋ς!∃&!
∃%! ,+&! −! ∀∃ΟΡ∀3∃4(Γ(4! %&∋)∋+&Α1∋! −&! −//
,∋∃∋)!−%%37∃,≅!,+)!∃,%∃%&∃,≅!−&!#∃%!(∋7−/∋!−,∗!7−/∋!∋71/+Α∋∋%!7−&0#!−!%&∋)∋+&Α1∋!%1∋0∃(∃0!&+!
∋∃)! %∋Σ
∋∃?&∋)7∃∀∀∗+Γ∗