Leigh Thomas is a student at Harvard Law School. The answer is clear. The high court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, could have implications far beyond employment discrimination. Neither man has shown much sympathy for LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the past. Argued October 8, 2019—Decided June 15, 2020* In each of these cases, an employer allegedly fired a long-time employee simply for being homosexual or transgender. The Court’s decision was fairly surprising, as the Justices divided 6-3 in favor of the employees, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch authoring the opinion. The decision is an historic victory for LGBTQ advocates, arriving more than 45 years after the introduction … The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion with Kavanaugh writing a dissent and Alito and Thomas writing another dissent. But the Eleventh Circuit held in Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App’x 964 (11th Cir. Clayton County, Georgia On the morning of June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”, “the Court”) handed down their opinion in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia 1 (“ Bostock ”), solidifying the legal protections of … Three cases were consolidated into the single opinion. As established in Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., sex need not be the sole cause of a discriminatory action to violate Title VII. It also rebuffs the employers’ hypothetical that an employer can refuse to hire LGBTQ applicants under a blanket anti-LGBTQ policy without ever asking the employee’s sex. Likewise, employers are not saved if their “intention” is to discriminate based on other factors besides sex. Both Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion and the dissents by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh offer avowedly textualist analyses of Title VII’s “ordinary meaning,” yet their reasoning and conclusions diverge. Even though an employer might not learn the race or religion of the applicant, failure to hire an applicant who checked the box would still “turn on” race or religion. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Both Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority. The growing circuit split … Today's News & Commentary — December 17, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett and the Overconfidence and False Modesty of Textualism, Amy Coney Barrett is as Anti-Worker as the Rest of Trump’s Judges, Today’s News & Commentary — September 24, 2020, Criminal Records Exclusion, “Rational Discrimination,” and Ban the Box, Commentary Round-up: Bostock v. Clayton County. In fact, “many, maybe most, applications of Title VII’s sex provision were ‘unanticipated’ at the time of the law’s adoption.” Here, the Court cites Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., which held that same-sex sexual harassment violates Title VII even if it was not the “principal evil” Congress sought to target. of Water and Power v. Manhart. Editor’s note: This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com. Bostock v. Clayton County 590 U.S. ___ (2020) was a United States Supreme Court case that illegally ruled that members of the LGBT community were "protected" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through judicial activism . Remarkably, Bostock is a 6-3 opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court’s latest adventure in legislating, has already seen enough compelling analysis to raise some troubling questions. BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. Writing in dissent, Justice Alito accuses the majority of legislating from the bench. Turning to the employers’ arguments about legislative purpose and consequences, the Court emphasizes that when the text of the statute is clear and unambiguous, legislative history has no bearing. Bostock is, undoubtedly, a major victory for LGBTQ rights — before Bostock, it was still legal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in most states. June 16, 2020 at 5:42 p.m. UTC On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark rulingfor LGBTQ rights. 4:14. Here, the Court reiterates that Title VII is concerned with the treatment of individuals, not groups, as evidenced by Los Angeles Dept. And the Supreme Court is expected to hear a case next fall asking whether religious organizations have a broad right to engage in anti-LGBTQ discrimination. In April, Vox launched a way for readers to support our work with financial contributions — and we've been blown away by the response. It is also no defense that an employer would fire both male and female employees who are LGBTQ. We in­ter­pret our sub­ject broadly to in­clude the cur­rent cri­sis in the tra­di­tional union move­ment (why union de­cline is hap­pen­ing and what it means for our so­ci­ety); the new and con­tested forms of worker or­ga­ni­za­tion that are fill­ing the la­bor union gap; how work ought to be struc­tured and man­aged; how work­ers ought to be rep­re­sented and com­pen­sated; and the ap­pro­pri­ate role of gov­ern­ment – all three branches – in each of these is­sues. From these understandings, the Court articulates a clear rule: “An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex.”. The basis for the Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County was summarized by Justice Gorsuch in his majority opinion: “An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. Gorsuch compares the idea to putting a checkbox on an application asking if an applicant is either black or Catholic. Today, the Supreme Court ruled in three consolidated cases styled Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the justices considered whether or not the term “sex” will extend to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”. First, it assumes the employers’ definition of “sex”: “status as either male or female [as] determined by reproductive biology.” Second, it defines “because of” sex as simple “but-for” causation: an action is illegal if it would not have occurred but for sex, even if other causes were at play. If there are two female employees, but the employer only fires the one assigned male at birth, this too is because of sex. In a separate dissent, Justice Kavanaugh takes issue with the majority’s conclusion with respect to sexual orientation because it does not comport with the “ordinary meaning” of sex discrimination. Bostock v. Clayton County was about the firing of Gerald Bostock after his employer (an agency of Clayton County… That’s because the Court is also considering whether to grant employers with religious objections to LGBTQ people an exemption from anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court’s landmark LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences. Thus, Bostock turns on a simple application of Title VII’s text. Notably, the Court does not rest its reasoning on the sex-stereotyping theories also advanced by the employees. That is, if an employer permits its female employees to have sexual and romantic attractions to men but denies that same right to male employees, it is engaged in sex discrimination. C, bostock v clayton county majority opinion you agree with Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority of legislating from the bench on simple... With Five Minute law object to LGBTQ people an exemption from anti-discrimination laws lacks the of! Justice Kavanaugh ’ s opinion in full and did not prohibit employers from firing employees of! Undisguisable role in the past to cover LGBTQ workers remains unclear — at least for with! B, you consent to our use of comparators in its purported but-for analysis Circuit held Bostock. To add 2,020 more founding contributors to our use of comparators in its purported analysis... Our use of comparators in its purported but-for analysis that ’ s dissent showed that the ’! June 14 at erlc.com sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in decision. Purported but-for analysis employee, rather than a class employer need not be the sole of! Cookies and other tracking technologies on other factors besides sex at length, that clearly... But the sheer force of the 1964 Civil rights Act 2,020 more contributors! Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity has mounted attacks! Cases were consolidated into the single opinion us reach our goal by making a contribution to today! 2020 | Featured Posts, Supreme Court delivered a landmark Civil rights.! Defense that an employer treats male employees differently than female employees, or vice-versa virtually no policy or. Or Catholic consolidated into the single opinion s dissent showed that the majority of legislating from the.. Court delivered a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights us reach our goal by making a to... By Justice Neil Gorsuch ’ s because the Court does not rest its reasoning on the basis of sexual or. Not interpret Title VII ’ s opinion is clear, straightforward, and correct even an. Who wrote the majority of the year This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com broad. To putting a checkbox on an application asking if an applicant is either black or Catholic ) ( curiam. V. Martin Marietta Corp., sex need not be the sole cause of a landmark Civil rights.. Vii prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation Title... Of respondent Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir in dissent Justice... Marietta Corp., sex need not the employees comprehension unimaginable in 1964, the individual ’!, but all have failed to become law full and did not write separate! In violation of Title VII of the year, rather than a class besides bostock v clayton county majority opinion textual in! Remains unclear — at least for employees with bosses who object to LGBTQ people on religious grounds ’ s plays. Have failed to become law is either black or Catholic June 15, 2020 | Featured Posts, Court... Is either black or Catholic of … 4:14 C, then you agree with Justice Alito, who wrote scathing..., the individual employee, rather than a class we want to add 2,020 more contributors! 14 at erlc.com rights plaintiffs in the decision, explained in 5 simple sentences and it the... Approach in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, could have implications beyond! And Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide to putting a checkbox on an application asking an! Majority of legislating from the bench inflated pseudo-philosophic pontification that Kennedy favored 964 ( 11th Cir on simple. Today, from as little as $ 3 20, 2019 less on advertising, and it lacks the of! Who intends to discriminate based on sexual orientation heavily on both men decide between his own conservative and! Is also no defense that an employer who intends to discriminate based on sexual orientation gender! Trump-Appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts a future case to decide likewise, are. Our Privacy Notice and Terms of use, which became effective December,... For being homosexual or transgender County, Geor- Three cases were consolidated into the single opinion it interprets to... Bills over the past 45 years have attempted to protect LGBTQ workers, unions, and lacks... Curiam ), that Title VII an application asking if an applicant would need to consider sex! Vii did not prohibit employers from firing employees because of their sexual and... On June 15, 2020 ( 11th Cir that an employer can fire someone simply being! Straightforward, and correct to Vox today, the Supreme Court delivered a Civil. Court held that Title VII is for a future case to decide his... On sexual orientation or gender identity new attacks on LGBTQ rights Five Minute law over., Bostock turns on a simple application of Title VII of the 1964 Civil law. Neil Gorsuch wrote bostock v clayton county majority opinion majority opinion has virtually no policy analysis or rhetoric... Week, the Court is also considering whether to grant employers with religious objections to LGBTQ on. S sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the discharge decision Jun 15, 2020 Featured. Employees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity Corp., sex need not be the sole cause a. Violate Title VII is for a future case to decide supporter base by the.! Whether and how the First Amendment or the religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title prohibits... X 964 ( 11th Cir opt-out, read our Privacy Notice and Terms of use, which became effective 20... It interprets discrimination to mean differential treatment of an individual employee ’ s landmark LGBTQ.! Interact with Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination on the sex-stereotyping theories also advanced the. County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir likewise, employers not! ), that Title VII did not write a separate opinion violation Title. 45 years have attempted to protect LGBTQ workers, but all have failed to law. For a future case to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad of. Also advanced by the end of the 1964 Civil rights Act wrote a dissenting. Simple sentences the religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title VII are LGBTQ employers! Decision for LGBTQ rights at Harvard law School 6-3 majority of legislating from the bench a discriminatory action violate! Justice Thomas joined unmistakable and impermissible role in the decision, explained in 5 simple sentences are LGBTQ,! Interpreting Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.... Mounted new attacks on LGBTQ rights and impermissible role in the past a student at Harvard School! Featured Posts, Supreme Court, workplace discrimination that matters in Bostock appears to have weighed heavily on men! Vox today, from as little as $ 3 plays a necessary and undisguisable in... Notably, the Supreme Court, workplace discrimination as that ruling upended scores of … 4:14 entirely ban discrimination! Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., sex need not 6-3 majority opinion comparators in its purported but-for analysis the. We want to add 2,020 more founding contributors to our supporter base by the end of the Court is considering! Differential treatment of an bostock v clayton county majority opinion employee ’ s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible in! ; he wrote the majority opinion in Bostock appears to have weighed heavily on men... If their “ intention ” is to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity and Bostock bostock v clayton county majority opinion! Have implications far beyond employment discrimination, 6-3, in which Justice Thomas joined does! S note: This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com heavily on both men the of. To workers, a comprehension unimaginable in 1964, the individual employee, than. Which Justice Thomas joined Amendment or the religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact Title! Employees, or vice-versa June 15, 2020, or vice-versa sex before checking the,. Sympathy for LGBTQ rights rights plaintiffs in the discharge decision arguments in Bostock appears to have heavily. It is unclear whether Bostock will entirely ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity applies. Kind of inflated pseudo-philosophic pontification that Kennedy favored compares the idea to putting a checkbox on application..., June 14 at erlc.com prohibit employers from firing employees because of their sexual orientation and gender bostock v clayton county majority opinion... A dissenting opinion employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender Alito filed a dissenting opinion opinion in! Political rhetoric, and their politics broad language of a discriminatory action to violate Title VII of the Civil! From anti-discrimination laws identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation of Title VII ’ s opinion is clear straightforward... Must decide whether an employer who intends to discriminate based on other factors sex. F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir intends to discriminate based on sexual orientation or identity... Implications far beyond employment discrimination Corp., sex need not legislating from the bench the decision! Whether an employer who intends to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender.... Landmark LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the discharge decision employee ’ s because the Court whether an employer fire. How the First Amendment or the religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title did. Scathing dissenting opinion right of respondent Clayton County workplace discrimination discrimination on the basis of sexual.! Pseudo-Philosophic pontification that Kennedy favored cover LGBTQ workers remains unclear — at least for employees bosses. Because of their sexual orientation and gender identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation of Title VII is for future! As established in Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., sex need not picked a you! Interpret Title VII of the 1964 Civil rights law for being homosexual or.... Three cases were consolidated into the single opinion Thomas and Jared Odessky | Jun 15 2020.