treatment. Plaintiffs have stated a straightforward claim of sex discrimination under Title IX. Cf. Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456, 480 (9th Cir.2014)(Berzon, J., concurring)(finding same-sex marriage bans were facially discriminatory on the basis of sex because the bans dictated who could marry who based on the sex of the marriage participants). This Court’s conclusion is in line with a recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) decision holding that sexual orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII, and therefore that the EEOC will treat sexual orientation discrimination claims the same as other sex' discrimination claims under Title VII. Baldwin v. Anthony Foxx, Sec’y, Dep’t of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641, at *10, (EEOC July 16, 2015) (<HOLDING>). The EEOC concluded that “[ajn employee could
holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability holding that employment discrimination on the basis of race creed disability or sex is a personal injury tort holding that a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment