Abstract
Title VII¿s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex is read broadly to include gender nonconformity. Although social scientists have documented the historic link between the homosocial performance of sexual orientation and the achievement of hegemonic masculinity within the modern workplace, courts continue to struggle with the task of defining the scope of protected gender nonconforming conduct. As many within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community continue to demand equal access, recognition, and employment opportunity, only twenty-one states provide statutory protections for LGBT persons or their allies, and courts utilize a number of judicial limits in an attempt to readily distinguish claims based on ¿sex¿ and those based on ¿sexual orientation.¿ However well-intended, such tools frustrate the legislative goals underlying Title VII and negate social science that suggests a new, fluid conceptualization of gender normativity is in order¿one capable of recognizing sexual orientation¿s unique role in achieving and reinforcing gender. This Comment proposes the use of an expansive interpretation of sex and what constitutes discrimination based on sex and discourages the imposition of court-crafted limits to the scope of conduct capable of classification as gender nonconforming.
Recommended Citation
Burton F. Peebles,
Blurred Lines: Sexual Orientation and Gender Nonconformity in Title VII,
64
Emory L. J.
911
(2015).
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol64/iss3/6