In the case of John Smith it’s discrimination of the law. John is open gay man is his way of live and choice. Under Title 7 of the civil rights “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” are unlawful to discriminate under. A person’s sex and gender need not to match one with another. Some men are more feminine than other men. Sexual orientation indicates his sexual attractions and desire, that’s person’s sexual attraction to other type people of the same as his is. Sex, gender, sexual orientations are interconnected. What is more important for purposes of the title 7 that courts often forcefully draw line between them. In the end sex and gender are protected by title 7, however sexual orientation is not. “Sexual orientation claims arises when an employee suffers discrimination solely on accounts of his or her sexual orientation. Law currently stands; sexual orientation claims are not actionable under title 7. This is true regardless of whether the claim is based on homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality” (Northwestern Universality Law Review, Title 7). John Smith and Joseph Oncale had almost the same issues when they both were harassed and discriminated at their work places. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, verbal or physical conduct of any sexual nature represent sexual harassments. “When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and created an abusive working environment” (Harris v Forklift case study). Smith was insulted and discriminated at the work. Based work place and environment no one will perform the best of their ability under constant abuse. In Oncale v Sundowner Offshore the Supreme Court explained that harassment shows if it’s aimed at an individual because of sex. However, under Title