In the text case Baldwin v. Foxx, where the plaintiff claimed he was not selected for a permanent position based on his gender and sexual orientation, the issue was whether plaintiff's claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation stated a claim under Title VII. What was the result in the case?

In Baldwin vs Foxx case, it was decided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it was wrong to discriminate against someone for employment due to his his sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Explanation:

Title VII of the Civil Right Act gives freedom to be employed without being discriminated against according to your sex or sexual orientation. Thus, in Baldwin vs Foxx case, the plaintiff, Baldwin prayed to be allowed to work and not to be discriminated against for his being a gay. This was opined eventually by the EOOC.

The following resulted in the case:

The plaintiff's discrimination claim based on sexual orientation fell within the meaning of sex discrimination under Title VII.

Note: For the first time, the EEOC stated that a claim for sexual orientation discrimination is, by definition, also a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII

Explanation:

It was said that the Complainant did not officially apply for the permanent position. This is because he had understanding that all temporary FLMs, including himself, were automatically considered for any open permanent FLM posting. But the Complainant claimed that the management could not give him permanent FLM because of his sexual orientation which he saw discriminatory. It was discovered that the Complainant was well-qualified for the position given his years of experience, and was familiar with the Miami facility.

Complainant said he was not selected because he was a gay.