Within the past two years, two circuit courts overruled decades of precedent that did not include sexual orientation discrimination as Title VII sex discrimination. The courts are starting to address the fact that people can theoretically marry whoever they want on Saturday but have no assurance that they will not be fired from their job on Monday because the employer does not like the fact that the employee married someone of the same sex. In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determined that sexual orientation discrimination is Title VII sex discrimination in Baldwin v. Foxx. In 2017, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, recognized sexual orientation discrimination as sex discrimination under Title VII in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. Then in 2018, the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, followed Chief Judge Katzmann’s concurrence in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc. to recognize sexual orientation discrimination as Title VII sex discrimination in Zarda v. Altitude Express. This Article examines the three cases, Baldwin, Hively, and Christiansen, and the theories recognized by the courts. Prior to recognizing sexual orientation discrimination as a Title VII discrimination, many courts allowed the failure to conform to gender norms theory and associational theory for employment discrimination where sexual orientation often factored into the discrimination. This Article proposes that courts recognize sexual orientation discrimination as sex discrimination under Title VII through deference to the EEOC. However, if unable to convince a court to recognize sexual orientation discrimination as a legal theory for relief, this Article suggest that both the associational theory and failure to conform to gender norms theory based on sexual orientation are avenues for protecting LGBT plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases.