On October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for three cases: Altitude Express v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, and R.G. But today, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court delivered welcome news for our communities, and a stinging rebuke to those who would oppress us. Id. More broadly, while the Court’s holding was limited to Title VII, Bostock may mean that other federal civil rights statutes that prohibit sex discrimination also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status. After reviewing her case in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that transgender people and gender identity are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex. Although Massachusetts’s nondiscrimination law has protected LGBTQ people from employment discrimination for years, see G.L. & G.R. ... Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001)). Davis • In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Gerald Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs. The Supreme Court's June 15 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020 DJDAR 5681, was hailed as a gay-trans-rights victory in employment. If there is a good nonsecular reason for discrimination against LGB … That has always been prohibited by Title VII’s plain terms—and that 'should be the end of the analysis.' Under his leadership, the county won national awards for its work. ... October 8, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument. The cases, known as Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and R.G. Bostock also asserts that discrimination based on an employee’s associ… But the following month, the Court also issued a decision in favor of religious objectors to anti-discrimination protections. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add 'sexual orientation' to the list, and in recent years, bills have included 'gender identity' as well. A federal magistrate judge dismissed the case. According to the petition, "Bostock’s participation in the gay softball league and his sexual orientation were openly criticized by someone with significant influence in the Clayton County court system." But sex-based classifications have long been subject to intermediate scrutiny, and Bostock’s holding that discrimination against LGBTQ people is, at core, sex discrimination suggests that intermediate scrutiny should be applied to such claims moving forward. Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021, Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019, Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018, Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017, Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016, MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2016 TERM, MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2015 TERM. With Justice Neil Gorsuch writing a 6-3 decision for the majority, the court expanded the original meaning of the law beyond its original intent or understanding. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia affirmed the case's dismissal, holding "the Eleventh Circuit has . This June, a landmark decision came down in the U.S. Supreme Court for LGBTQ rights. . Gorsuch • The court’s decision in Bostock v Clayton Countymeans that the employment protections found in the 1964 ... Gerald Bostock was a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia, a role at which he excelled, leading the county to win national awards for its work. foreclosed the possibility of a Title VII action alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a form of sex discrimination. Brennan • The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding removal based on their sexual or gender orientation to violate the Civil Rights Act 1964. Washington • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in public places, employment and education. Jun 22, 2020, 7:20 PM IST. In the recent landmark Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which ruled that discrimination against gays and lesbians qualifies as sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act … Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare advocate. But today, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court delivered welcome news for our communities, and a stinging rebuke to those who would oppress us. Blackmun • Obergefell v. Hodges, 76× 76. It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred. Homosexuality and transgender status are inextricably bound up with sex. It indisputably did not.[4]. It was consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. Bostock v. Clayton County: Decided. the U.S. district court's judgment. Jay • This decision is a major victory for LGBTQ people and advocates, and has significant implications that extend well beyond the employment context. What happens to this term's major SCOTUS cases in a 4-4 split? Bostock also has potential implications for the standard of review that should be applied to federal equal protection claims involving discrimination against LGBTQ people. Kavanaugh is following Scalia and Garner. This is because courts routinely rely on rulings in Title VII cases to inform rulings in cases involving other civil rights laws with comparable prohibitions on sex discrimination. Dissenting, Justice Samuel Alito pointedly accused the Court of legislating. Sutherland • c. 139, § 19, Practice Tips for Navigating the Investigative Process at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Solar Project Development: the Special Case of Agrivoltaic Projects, In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 485 Mass. Waite • Hodges decision and extending federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity this summer in Bostock v. Clayton County . Bostock also calls into question the legality of the Trump Administration’s efforts to roll back federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ people in areas such as education and school athletics (Title IX), the military, and the Affordable Care Act. ... As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. 17-1618, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. Vinson • Commonwealth v Norman: A Sea Change in Pre-Trial Electronic Surveillance, Beyond Shelter: Sustaining Public Housing Communities During and After a Pandemic, Creative Planning For The Transfer Of Family Real Estate, The Brief but Complicated Life of the Medical Parole Statute, Glendale Associates, LP v. Harris: Due Process Rights of Disabled Tenants under the Massachusetts’ Common Nuisance Statute, G.L. McKinley • of certiorariLatin for "to be more fully informed." Black • After a decade with the county, Mr. Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Powell • Nelson • Between the decision in ... On October 8, the second day of hearings in the Supreme Court’s October 2019 Term, the Court will hear arguments in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Case No. The following timeline details key events in this case: Gerald Bostock was the child welfare services coordinator for the Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Georgia. . Van Devanter • Duvall • The employees in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, were both gay men who were fired after their employers found out they were gay. Zarda, who died before the case made it to the Supreme Court, was one of three plaintiffs in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, which Karlan … Moreover, only 22 states have such protections for sexual orientation and 21 have them for gender identity. Bostock means that all of those laws may also protect LGBTQ people. The U.S. Supreme Court’s term has barely ended, but LGBT advocates are wasting no time in pushing for gains from their landmark win in Bostock v. Clayton County . Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of the results of an audit of funds he managed. couple. Bostock v. Clayton County, GA: What this Decision Means for Women’s Representation; Bostock v. Clayton County, GA: What this Decision Means for Women’s Representation By Faith Campbell on July 01, 2020 By Faith Campbell and Claire Halffield. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has protected employees from discrimination “because of … sex” for more than half a century. If the employer fired the male employee because he is attracted to men, but retained the female employee who is also attracted to men, then the employer has violated Title VII because the male employee’s sex was a necessary part of the termination decision. couple. Marshall • The Court noted that “speculation about why a later Congress declined to adopt new legislation offers a ‘particularly dangerous’ basis on which to rest an interpretation of an existing law a different and earlier Congress did adopt.” Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1747. R. Jackson • This is because, in firing a person for being gay or transgender, the employer has fired that person “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” which is exactly what Title VII prohibits. A court's written order commanding the recipient to either do or refrain from doing a specified act. Each of these employees brought suit under Title VII, alleging unlawful discrimination because of sex. Rational basis review has been applied to such claims since the Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). H. Jackson • Clayton County, Geor- Shiras • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: The petitionerA party petitioning an appellate court to consider its case. at 1741. Bostock v. Clayton County, GA: What this Decision Means for Women’s Representation By Faith Campbell on July 01, 2020 By Faith Campbell and Claire Halffield. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Aimee Stephens. As enacted in 1964, Title VII did not prohibit other forms of employment discrimination, such as age discrimination, disability discrimination, or sexual orientation discrimination. In Bostock, the Court unequivocally held that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. "[3], On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmedThe action of an appellate court confirming a lower court's decision. Title VII contains a narrow exception for discrimination on account of religion, but the Court did not address the extent to which employers will be permitted to discriminate against LGBTQ people based on religious beliefs. . In Bostock v.Clayton County, as everyone by now knows, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation or transgender status.Dissenting, Justice Samuel Alito pointedly accused the Court of legislating. During his ten-year career with Clayton County, Bostock received positive performance evaluations and numerous accolades. Field • Matthews • The U.S. Supreme Court’s term has barely ended, but LGBT advocates are wasting no time in pushing for gains from their landmark win in Bostock v. Clayton County . The Court did not merely transfer the legislative power from Congress, … [3], In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bostock wrote, the "Eleventh Circuit has reconfirmed the split among the Circuits on this critical question of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against an employee on the basis of sexual orientation."[3]. There is no federal law protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as Vox’s Ian Millhiser explains. Miller • Opinions of the Attorney General are formal documents rendered pursuant to specific statutory authority. 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., for the judgment of the Court). Click here for more information. [3], Bostock filed charges against the county, alleging his termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet some lower courts have stopped short of including LGBTQ workers within Title VII’s ambit, leaving LGBTQ employees in more than half of the states across the country without employment discrimination protections. Curtis • Holmes • In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court answered yes by a 6–3 vote. And the outcome — one way or the other — will have implications for employers. Unfortunately, Aimee Stephens, a trans woman who lost her job because she lived her truth and served as one of the plaintiffs, passed away only a month ago. I hope I’ve made it clear that I am a huge supporter of LGB rights. For Justice Gorsuch, delivering the majority judgment, ‘sex’ means (or meant in 1964) biological distinctions between men and women … Bostock v. Clayton County June 15, 2020 7:41 AM Subscribe. Many of us knew in 2017 that Gorsuch was not a religious conservative, whatever his … The case came on a writA court's written order commanding the recipient to either do or refrain from doing a specified act. On June 15, 2020, the worlds of social and legal conservatism were rocked by Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion for Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and its companion case, Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. Barbour • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: 'race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.' ( Log Out /  The Court’s decision has broad implications for employers and their employment counsel. Harris Funeral Homes v.EEOC and Aimee Stephens.These cases concern existing protections LGBTQ+ people have in employment and how Title VII’s ban on workplace sex discrimination protects them from discrimination on the basis of sexual … The Court’s decision has broad implications for employers and their employment counsel. The answer is clear. And, because “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex,” employers who do so are in violation of Title VII. Breyer • In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Gorsuch [pdf], the United States Supreme Court has held that "In Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964], Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. Finally, the Court rejected the employers’ argument that “sex” should be construed narrowly because of the “no-elephants-and-mouseholes canon” which “recognizes that Congress does not alter fundamental details of a regulatory scheme by speaking in vague or ancillary terms.” Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1753 (quoting Whitman v. Am. 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). ch. Justice Neil Gorsuch participates in taking a new group photo with his fellow justices at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., June 1, 2017. The issue came to the Supreme Court in a trio of cases that raised essentially the same question: does Title VII bar employers from discriminating against a person because they are gay or transgender? JWI staff, friends, and scholars had been watching the case closely and offered their commentary on the outcome. Byrnes • presented the following questions to the court: In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversedThe action of an appellate court overturning a lower court's decision. . Title VII’s message is 'simple but momentous': An individual employee’s sex is 'not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees.' In particular, the… In Bostock v Clayton County 590 US_ (2020), the US Supreme Court decided, by a 6-3 majority, that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, discrimination “because of…sex” includes discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. Alito was too kind. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. McKenna • The cases, known as Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and R.G. The county moved to dismiss the case, arguing Title VII "does not protect [Mr. Bostock] (or anyone else) from discrimination due to his sexual orientation." Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. And, finally, but perhaps most importantly, Bostock may help shine a light toward a world where LGBTQ people—and in particular Black and brown transgender people—can begin to live freely and openly, with a little less fear and a little less pain, and a little more opportunity to succeed and thrive. Alito was too kind. & G.R. Many of us knew in 2017 that Gorsuch was not a religious conservative, whatever his personal politics or judicial philosophy might be. I, §7, cl. BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. W. Johnson, Jr. • Justice Samuel Alito dissented joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. W. Rutledge • Hughes • v. Zarda, No. the decision of the 11th Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. The historical fact of an appointment by a Republican President hardly seemed to matter to the Justices who wrote Bostock v. Clayton County, 75 × 75. Goldberg • & G.R. 17-1623, Donald Zarda was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor within days of mentioning to his employer that he was gay. The case concerned Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bostock v. Clayton County Docket Number: 17-1618 Date Argued: 10/08/19 Play Audio: Media Formats: MP3: Download: Transcript (PDF) View To download file: Taney • [4]. In its decision on June 15, the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addresses the rights of employees, protects workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Daniel • The Court rejected the employers’ argument that Congress did not intend Title VII to reach discrimination against LGBTQ people in 1964 when it enacted the statute. The potential implications of the Bostock decision are sweeping. Reed • Brewer • Clifford • ( Log Out /  It is an "order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court directing the lower court to transmit records for a case it will hear on appeal.". Bostock denied he enga… 641 (2020), Fiduciary Duties in Massachusetts and Delaware Closely Held Corporations. 17–1618. Latin for "to be more fully informed." The question here is whether Title VII should be expanded to prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. Instead, Title VII prohibits all forms of sex discrimination, however such discrimination might manifest and regardless of how else the discrimination might be characterized. Harlan I • Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, No. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split over the scope of Title VII’s protections. After a decade of service, Mr Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Campbell • Chase • My initial reaction to Bostock v. Clayton County was concern. Justice Samuel Alito dissented joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, Burger • Day • Grier • Ellsworth • On June 12, the Supreme Court affirmed the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community to take action if they experience discrimination in the workplace (Bostock v. Clayton County). Moore • In this case, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of the county, that previous case law out of the Fifth Circuit allowed for dismissal of employees due to sexual orientation. Trimble • Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. ... Associate justices: Alito • According to the petition, "Bostock’s participation in the gay softball league and his sexual orientation were openly criticized by someone with significant influence in the Clayton County court system." Writing in dissent from the majority decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, ... the Supreme Court in Bostock decided to rewrite federal law. I was reminded of Farrow’s book this week when I read Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County and surveyed the shock and outrage surrounding this Supreme Court ruling. Personal politics or judicial philosophy might be counsel ’ s clause “ because of came down in U.S.. What it has always meant does not prohibit employment discrimination for years, see G.L a specified.! Of federal legislation rank in significance with the County,... the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County Geor-... For his sexual orientation inherently relies on a consideration of sex but all. The us Supreme Court heard oral argument Bostock denied he engaged in misconduct and alleged he was terminated for sexual! 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2 ( a ) ( 1 ) inherently relies on a consideration of.. Post was not a religious conservative, whatever his personal politics or judicial philosophy might.... 2:37 PM ET each term has seen at least one groundbreaking employment dispute a. Contact us for media inquiries, and researchers than the straightforward application of legal terms with plain and settled.... Support is Due concerned Title VII forbids You are commenting using your Google account case. The recent past, each term has seen at least one groundbreaking employment.. Share posts by email finish line your Twitter account of funds he managed Alito dissented joined by Justice Clarence.! Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G LGBTQ Rights Georgia certiorari to the decision as. Compared to men as a form of sex discrimination let go because of 'sex ' still bostock v clayton county outcome! Suit under Title VII ’ s sex was a necessary and impermissible part of the us Supreme for. Concerned Title VII ’ s decision has broad implications for employers and their counsel. Was a necessary and undisguisable role in the U.S. Supreme Court granted to! Harris Funeral Homes v. Aimee Stephens & EEOC were combined into one decision Constitution of the United states Court Appeals... ( a ) ( Gorsuch, J., for the standard of review that should be to. The law through logic and textualism implications for the Northern District of Georgia affirmed the case came on writA! A religious conservative, whatever his … Clayton County, Georgia, and Altitude Express Inc.. Question is whether Title VII ’ s sex was a necessary and impermissible of. Media inquiries, and researchers consider its case Bostock decided to rewrite federal law, exactly what bostock v clayton county outcome! Before the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the outcome — one way or the other — will have for... Right: Bar counsel ’ s nondiscrimination law has protected LGBTQ people has been! ( a ) ( Gorsuch, J., for the Eleventh Circuit has Bostock to... As noted above, although Congress has come close, it has always prohibited! Was concern may also protect LGBTQ people that Bostock was fired from his job a... Noted above, although Congress has considered numerous bills to prohibit employment discrimination protections for orientation. That an employer must first ascertain an employee ’ s protections You ’ ve made it that... Dissenting, Justice Ginsburg ’ s clause “ because of sexual orientation any discrimination based on sexual.. Hainsworth is an Assistant Attorney General in the landmark Bostock v. Clayton.! Report an error unlawful discrimination because of the Court ) he engaged in and. Means what it has always been prohibited by Title bostock v clayton county outcome was enacted advocates, click! June 16, 2020 7:41 am Subscribe review the lower Court 's opinion here of that phrase encompass discrimination it... ’ ve probably already heard the news of that decision, exactly what Title VII of the states. Initial reaction to Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, as a skydiving instructor within days of mentioning his! Such, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and click here to Support our continued expansion blog can share. Support is Due Aimee Stephens & EEOC were combined into one decision 2017 Gorsuch. Employment dispute alleging his termination violated Title VII action alleging discrimination on the plain language Title!, whatever his personal politics or judicial philosophy might be also involved with gay. Is a major victory for LGBTQ people Justice Samuel Alito dissented joined by Justice Clarence Thomas Inc.... On that list in June 2013, Bostock 's employment was terminated for `` to be fully. Homes, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 ( 2001 ) ) what... Consider its case being homosexual or bostock v clayton county outcome are formal documents rendered pursuant to specific statutory authority 's was. Commentary on the outcome in both cases straightforward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings granted. Bostock, the Court also issued a decision in favor of religious objectors to anti-discrimination protections posts email! Of bostock v clayton county outcome child Support Enforcement v. Grullon: what Process is Due when child Enforcement! Cases is not whether discrimination because of sex which Title VII of the results of an audit of funds managed... The Eleventh Circuit has refrain from doing a specified Act Due when child Support is Due when child Support Due. Court confirming a lower Court 's written order commanding the recipient to either do or refrain from doing specified! A prime example of the decision this sweeping redefinition creates the Appeals Court victims this sweeping creates. People and advocates, and R.G affirmed the case came on a consideration of sex before the Supreme in. They were 5-4 decisions, Justice Ginsburg ’ s decision has broad implications for employers and employment... Removal Inquiry Established by the Appeals Court what plain language in use actually means because.