Is sexual orientation discrimination unlawful under the Civil Rights Act?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In this case of a state university that, after a student disclosed she was homosexual, baselessly and permanently refused to issue her fully-earned credential, denied her due process, and spread lies about her, four questions arose: 1. Under the Civil Rights Act, is sexual orientation discrimination unlawful “on the basis of sex,” and/or “because of . . . sex,” as held by the Second and Seventh Circuits, or does such text impliedly exclude homosexual persons, as the Eleventh Circuit reasoned? 2. Does “academic deference” remain an affirmative due process defense that universities must plead and prove, as this Court and the Fourth Circuit have held, or is it an immunity-like 12(b)(6) presumption that bars all sorts of claims, including unlawful discrimination? 3. When a non-frivolous First Amended Complaint is filed after 12(b)(6) judgment, does the district court abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend, or may it forfeit the action to punish the plaintiff for “delay” she did not cause or control? 4. When a plaintiff files a new action within the forum’s savings statute period, and her amended com: plaint adds no claims or parties, is the district court bound by state precedent, or may it reject state law and forfeit the plaintiff’s entire action?