{"id":11056,"date":"2026-06-27T13:08:23","date_gmt":"2026-06-27T13:08:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/second-circuit-sitting-en-banc-holds-that-title-vii-prohibits-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sexual-orientation\/"},"modified":"2026-06-27T13:08:23","modified_gmt":"2026-06-27T13:08:23","slug":"second-circuit-sitting-en-banc-holds-that-title-vii-prohibits-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sexual-orientation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/second-circuit-sitting-en-banc-holds-that-title-vii-prohibits-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sexual-orientation\/","title":{"rendered":"Second Circuit Sitting En Banc Holds that Title VII Prohibits Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div id=\"contentSummaryCollapse\" style=\"--intro-p-height: 10.3125rem;\">\n<div class=\"inner-collapse\">\n<p>Yesterday, the Second Circuit, sitting <em>en banc<\/em>, held in a 10 to 3 decision that \u201cTitle VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as discrimination \u2018because of\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0sex.\u2019\u201d <em>Zarda<\/em> v. <em>Altitude Express, Inc.<\/em>, No. 15-3775. The Second Circuit now joins the Seventh Circuit as the only courts of appeals to so hold. All other courts of appeals to consider the question have held that sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited by Title VII.<\/p>\n<p>Last year, Chief Judge Katzmann, in a concurring opinion to <em>Christiansen<\/em> v. <em>Omnicom Group, Inc.<\/em>, 852 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2017), called for the Second Circuit to \u201crevisit\u201d its precedent that sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited by Title VII, as we discussed in our previous blog post. When the Second Circuit agreed to do so in <em>Zarda<\/em>, the EEOC and Department of Justice filed opposing amicus briefs. The EEOC argued that sexual orientation claims fall within Title VII\u2019s prohibition against discrimination \u201con the basis of sex,\u201d while the DOJ took the opposite position.<\/p>\n<p>The decision, authored by Chief Judge Katzmann, acknowledged that sexual orientation discrimination was \u201cnot the principal evil that Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII\u201d but nevertheless concluded that sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination in part \u201cbecause sexual orientation is defined by one\u2019s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted.\u201d The court also reasoned that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes discrimination \u201con the basis of sex\u201d because \u201c[s]exual orientation discrimination is also based on assumptions or stereotypes about how members of a particular gender should be, including to whom they should be attracted.\u201d A number of judges filed concurring opinions, and Judges Livingston, Lynch, and Raggi each filed dissents.<\/p>\n<p>On December 11, 2017, the Supreme Court declined to consider this question, despite the existence of a circuit split on the question. With this decision deepening the split, the Supreme Court may be presented with another opportunity to address the question.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday, the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, held in a 10 to 3 decision that \u201cTitle VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as discrimination \u2018because [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11057,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[4591,2550,610,349,1876,7923,8137,301,8187,913,914],"class_list":["post-11056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-banc","tag-basis","tag-circuit","tag-discrimination","tag-holds","tag-orientation","tag-prohibits","tag-sexual","tag-sitting","tag-title","tag-vii"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11056","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11056\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11057"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}