purposes of his summary judgment motion. It is therefore unnecessary to consider this issue. Defendant’s sole argument is that plaintiff has failed to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant’s alleged harassment was based on sex. According to defendant, the evidence shows at most that defendant’s alleged sexual advances were based on “characteristics personal to” plaintiff. Id. As an initial matter, I note that, unlike Title VII, the guarantees of the equal protection clause are not limited to a specified list of groups. Although Title VII applies only to discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, national origin and religion, the equal protection clause extends to all forms of discrimination. E.g., Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Even individuals not claiming to be a part of
holding that sexual orientation and sexual identity are immutable holding that title vii does not protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation holding that a prisoner stated a valid equal protection claim when he alleged he was denied a work assignment because of his sexual orientation holding sexual orientation is fundamental to a persons identity recognizing harassment claim under equal protection clause based on sexual orientation