Bostock v. Clayton County
590 U.S. ___ (2020) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it fires an individual based on their sexual orientation or transgender status. Such discrimination is necessarily 'because of... sex' as it impermissibly considers an employee's sex as a but-for cause in the decision-making process.
Facts:
- Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare advocate for a decade.
- Shortly after Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league, Clayton County fired him for conduct 'unbecoming' a county employee.
- Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express in New York for several seasons.
- Days after Zarda mentioned that he was gay, Altitude Express fired him.
- Aimee Stephens worked at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes for six years, presenting as a male.
- Stephens wrote a letter to her employer explaining that she was transgender and planned to 'live and work full-time as a woman.'
- The funeral home fired Stephens before she could take a planned vacation, telling her 'this is not going to work out.'
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Bostock sued his employer, Clayton County, in federal district court for employment discrimination under Title VII.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Bostock's suit, holding that Title VII does not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
- Donald Zarda's estate sued his employer, Altitude Express, in federal district court. That case was eventually appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, concluded that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination and violates Title VII.
- Aimee Stephens' estate sued her employer, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, in federal district court, and the case was appealed.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, held that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on transgender status.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court, granted certiorari in all three cases to resolve the disagreement, or 'circuit split,' among the lower appellate courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination 'because of... sex,' also prohibit discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation or transgender status?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gorsuch
Yes. Title VII's prohibition on discrimination 'because of... sex' encompasses discrimination based on homosexuality and transgender status. This conclusion is compelled by the plain meaning of the statutory text. The statute's 'because of' standard incorporates traditional but-for causation, meaning an employer violates the law if an employee's sex was one but-for cause of an adverse employment decision. It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. For example, an employer who fires a man for being attracted to men, but would not fire a woman for being attracted to men, is making a decision where the employee's sex is an indispensable and undisguisable factor. The focus of Title VII is on the individual, not groups, so it is no defense that an employer might fire both gay men and lesbians. Precedents like Phillips, Manhart, and Oncale confirm that sex need not be the sole cause and that the statute's broad terms govern, even if the application was not anticipated by the enacting Congress.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No. The Court's decision is legislation, not interpretation. The ordinary public meaning of 'sex' in 1964 referred exclusively to biological distinctions between male and female and did not encompass sexual orientation or gender identity, which were widely viewed as mental disorders and morally culpable. An employer can discriminate based on sexual orientation without knowing an employee's biological sex, proving the two are not inextricably linked. Congress has repeatedly considered but failed to pass legislation explicitly adding sexual orientation to Title VII, demonstrating that the existing statute was not understood to include it. The majority ignores this historical context and the societal norms of 1964, instead imposing modern values onto an old statute and creating far-reaching consequences for religious freedom, privacy, and women's sports that Congress should be left to address.
Dissenting - Justice Kavanaugh
No. The responsibility to amend Title VII to include sexual orientation belongs to Congress, not the Court, under the separation of powers. Proper statutory interpretation requires adhering to the ordinary meaning of a phrase, not a hyper-literal interpretation of its component words. The ordinary meaning of the phrase 'discriminate because of sex,' both in 1964 and today, is distinct from sexual orientation discrimination, as evidenced by common parlance, legislative practice in federal and state laws, executive orders, and this Court's own jurisprudence. By adopting a literalist reading, the Court rewrites the law, bypassing the democratic process and usurping the role of the people's elected representatives. While the policy arguments for protecting gay and lesbian Americans from discrimination are weighty, it is Congress's role to enact them into law.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly expands the scope of Title VII protection to millions of LGBTQ+ workers nationwide without legislative amendment. It solidifies a textualist approach to statutory interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of words, even if it leads to outcomes the enacting Congress did not anticipate. The ruling will have a profound impact on future cases involving sex discrimination under other federal laws, such as Title IX in education, the Fair Housing Act, and the Affordable Care Act. It establishes that discrimination based on traits inextricably linked to sex (like sexual orientation or gender identity) is a form of sex discrimination, altering the landscape of civil rights law.
