Click To Call

Email Us For A Free Consultation

No fees for inquiries

(Free consultations are available only in personal injury cases
& it costs nothing to inquire). All inquiries are confidential.
Read our disclaimer

HKQ Firm News


HKQ Law Employment Discrimination Lawyer Lars Anderson

It began in 2009 when someone reported seeing Ivy Tech Community College adjunct professor Kimberly Hively kiss her girlfriend goodbye in a car in the campus parking lot. The next day, Hively received a phone call at home from a college administrator, who reminded Hively of her duty to “appear professional at all times”.

In the following five years, Hively was not granted full-time status despite multiple applications. She was let go in 2014 after working at the college since 2000. Hively sued the community college in 2013, claiming that she was "denied full time employment and promotions based on sexual orientation" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hively filed her action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Ivy Tech responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. It argued that sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title VII (or 42 U.S.C. § 1981). Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. But it doesn’t expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The District Court granted Ivy Tech’s motion and dismissed Hively’s case with prejudice.

Hively appealed the District Court’s dismissal to the Seventh Circuit Court (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), which initially affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Hively’s complaint. Subsequently, the Seventh Circuit granted Hively’s request for an en banc hearing.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, filed a brief in support of Hively. In a 2015 federal sector decision, the EEOC determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex. Attorney Gail Coleman of the commission posed a few questions to the court: "If this employee's sex were different, would the employer object to their relationship with this other person? If this employee were a man with a picture of his wife on his desk, would that be OK whereas if this employee were a woman with a picture with her wife, that's not OK? If her sex was different, would she be treated differently?"

The Seventh Circuit cited several relevant Supreme Court cases in support of the argument that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination”. The cases included Loving v. Virginia, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, and Obergefell v. Hodges. In Loving, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of the race with whom a person associates is a form of racial discrimination. Price Waterhouse held that the practice of gender stereotyping falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. In Obergefell, the Supreme Court recognized that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution protect the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The Seventh Circuit noted that “in the years since 1964, Title VII has been understood to cover far more than the simple decision of an employer not to hire a woman for Job A, or a man for Job B.” The Court concluded that “Any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant – woman or man – dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates or marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex. That means that it falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination.”

On April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Hively’s suit against Ivy Tech and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Seventh Circuit ruling is not the law of the land, and it has created a split with other federal courts, who differ on their interpretation. The Eleventh Circuit held as recently as March 2017 that discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation is not prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The issue is likely to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While there is no federal statute explicitly addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, some twenty states and the District of Columbia, as well as several hundred municipalities (counties and cities) have laws that prohibit such discrimination.

Pennsylvania prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but that prohibition only covers state employment. It does not apply to private sector employment.

Lars H. Anderson, Employment Lawyer at HKQ Law reminds employers of the importance of staying in compliance with ever-evolving employment discrimination laws. “We can help review your policies and procedures, and address any potential issues before they become problems.” If you need assistance, call HKQ Law for your consultation at 570-287-3000, or visit

About HKQ Law

Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn is considered one of the top civil litigation and commercial law firms that has had the privilege of representing more families in the courtroom than any other NEPA firm. The attorneys at HKQ Law have been honored as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, Best Law Firms by US News and World Report, and have received the AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbel. HKQ Law was recently recognized for one of the top 20 Verdicts in Pennsylvania.

The firm’s Personal Injury Team, led by Attorney Joe Quinn, Jr., has won some of the largest verdicts and settlements in the region's history. The Personal Injury Team focuses on a wide array of personal injury claims and civil litigation, including medical malpractice, auto and truck accidents, aviation accidents, unsafe vehicles, dangerous or defective products, workplace injuries (worker's compensation), construction site accidents, claim denials by insurance companies, dangerous drugs, defective children's products, nursing home abuse and neglect, and falls due to unsafe conditions (slip and fall).

Attorney Joseph A Quinn, Jr. is one of only 100 attorneys in the United States (and one of only three in Pennsylvania) honored with membership in the Inner Circle of Trial Advocates, and one of only 500 attorneys worldwide chosen to be a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. He has been a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer every year since the program began and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America every year since the publication was established in 1987. Best Lawyers also named him top personal injury attorney for Northeastern Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley. In addition, Best Lawyers, in conjunction with U.S. News & World Report, has designated HKQ a Tier 1 Best Law Firm across multiple categories in Northeastern Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley.

Since the inception of the firm, the Commercial / Corporate Team led by Attorney Allan Kluger has provided comprehensive, integrated legal services to many of Northeastern and Eastern Pennsylvania's largest corporations, businesses, banks, non-profits and institutions, handling matters involving labor and employment, wills, trusts and estate planning, estate administration, elder law, commercial transactions, residential and commercial real estate, zoning, land use and development, telecommunications, mediations and arbitrations, commercial litigation, title insurance, business planning and business succession, corporate/business structuring, employment discrimination law for employers, banking, creditor’s rights, finance, lender liability defense, covenants not to compete, construction law, mergers and acquisitions and other business matters.

Additional information can be found at or by calling (800) 760-1529.



As Hourigan, Kluger and Quinn addresses the concerns raised by COVID-19, the health and safety of our clients, employees and friends of the firm remain our top priority.

These are very difficult and scary times and we hope that you and your loved ones are safe and symptom free. We recognize that so many of you are understandably anxious about your health, the economic impact of this pandemic and all of the consequences of social isolation.

We also recognize that many of you are anxious about how the coronavirus is impacting the Court systems, our firm and your cases. Although all of our offices are closed, our firm has remained fully operational and we have initiated procedures that allow all of our attorneys and staff to work remotely from their homes. Each of us and our staff will respond to any emails and calls about your cases as quickly as possible.

Our Federal and State Courts have instituted significant changes in their calendars as a result of the coronavirus. Although most courthouses are closed to the public, and Hearings and Trials will be delayed for some time, there are matters that can proceed telephonically and by video. Despite these changes in the Court calendars, we are working diligently on your cases and are determined to do whatever we possibly can to assure an early and just recovery for you and your loved ones. Even under these difficult circumstances, we believe that "Nobody will work harder for you than we will."

With regard to new potential clients, we are not in a position to have an in-person new client meeting, but we will be conducting these initial meetings via phone. New potential clients should call us for a free telephone consultation at (570) 287-3000.


Back to Top