These facts, if assumed true, demonstrate discrimination against Gill on the basis of her sexual orientation, which can be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 530-31 (5th Cir.2004); Pratt v. Indian River Cent. Sch. Dist., 803 F.Supp.2d 135, 152 (N.D.N.Y.2011); Massey v. Banning Unified Sch. Dist., 256 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1094 (C.D.Cal.2003). Having found that Gill sufficiently has alleged the violation of a constitutional right, the Court now examines whether that right was clearly established under relevant law. In 1996, the United States Supreme Court held that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Seven years later, the Supreme Court
holding that state and federal equal protection guarantees provide similar protections holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that a colorado amendment prohibiting legislative judicial or executive action designed to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination violated the equal protection clause holding state constitutional amendment prohibiting civilrights protections for gays lesbians and bisexuals violated equal protection clause holding that an amendment to the colorado constitution that repealed all local and statewide laws prohibiting sexualorientation discrimination violated the federal equal protection clause