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. 4:14. All rights reserved. And Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark civil rights law. 17–1618. 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. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. June 15, 2020. If you picked C, then you agree with Five Minute Law. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. By interpreting Title VII to cover LGBTQ workers, a comprehension unimaginable in 1964, the Court has usurped the role of Congress. What just happened? Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority, framing the decision as a “straightforward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings.”, The Court begins its opinion by assessing the ordinary public meaning of the terms of Title VII. In a 6-3 ruling of a consolidated group of cases styled Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Kelly S. Hughes Charlotte Author The recent Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia decision, in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that an employer that fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has received a … Alito rejects the majority’s claim to textualism, characterizing the opinion as a “pirate ship”: “[i]t sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated–the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.” To demonstrate the opinion’s textualist flaws, Alito interrogates the majority’s checkbox hypothetical. Today, the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. An applicant not hired for checking the “black or Catholic” box would face illegal discrimination for being black or Catholic, but an employee checking the “homosexual” box would face discrimination because of sexual orientation, without any reference to sex. In a concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), Gorsuch suggested that religious conservatives should enjoy sweeping exemptions from laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Alito concludes with a parade of horribles he claims will result from the decision, listing consequences for sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms; women’s sports; employment by religious organizations; housing; healthcare benefits; freedom of speech; and constitutional claims. The growing circuit split … Alito also attacks the majority’s use of comparators in its purported but-for analysis. The answer is clear. If a male and female employee are both attracted to men, but the employer only fires the man, the decision is because of sex. Discrimination “because of ... sex” occurs whenever an employer treats male employees differently than female employees, or vice-versa. Gorsuch also applies similar logic to a transgender employee: Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 majority opinion in Bostock v.Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects employees from discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity.. Writing in dissent from the majority decision in Bostock v.Clayton County, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito summed up the proper reaction to his colleagues’ rewriting of federal law to shoehorn “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the longstanding definition of sex: Next, the Court concludes that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” It uses two examples drawn from the employees’ arguments. But the sheer force of the plaintiffs’ textual arguments in Bostock appears to have weighed heavily on both men. As established in Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., sex need not be the sole cause of a discriminatory action to violate Title VII. An employer who intends to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation of Title VII. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender individuals from workplace discrimination. ... Waiver of right of respondent Clayton County, Georgia to respond filed. For Justice Gorsuch, delivering the majority judgment, ‘sex’ means (or meant in 1964) biological distinctions between men and women … Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion. ANALYSIS/OPINION: On Monday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued the Roe v. Wade of religious liberty. Even if an applicant would need to consider their sex before checking the box, the employer need not. Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court’s latest adventure in legislating, has already seen enough compelling analysis to raise some troubling questions. Notably, the Court does not rest its reasoning on the sex-stereotyping theories also advanced by the employees. Title VII bans any employment discrimination that occurs “because of ... sex.” As Bostock explains, this means that if an employer “intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee” or “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer,” then Title VII has been violated. After establishing the basic formulation, the Court explains how an employer cannot escape liability by claiming that “other factors” besides sex, such as sexual orientation or gender identity, contributed to the employer’s decision. Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 15, 2020. Support from our readers helps us rely less on advertising, and keep our resource-intensive work free for everyone who needs it. The decision is an historic victory for LGBTQ advocates, arriving more than 45 years after the introduction … And, as Bostock explains at length, that text clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 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 . If you picked A, you agree with Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. But the 6-3 majority opinion in Bostock was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark Supreme Court decision holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers, was a test of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s principles. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock v.Clayton County, a Supreme Court decision extending employment protections to gay and transgender people, kicks off a … The Supreme Court’s landmark LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences. Help us reach our goal by making a contribution to Vox today, from as little as $3. Excellent Critiques of Bostock Ruling By ED WHELAN June 25, 2020 9:51 AM I’ve run across several excellent critiques of Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (on top, of course, of the compelling dissents by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh). The Trump-appointed justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use, which became effective December 20, 2019. A male and female employee who are both attracted to men may be different because of their sex, but they are also different because of their sexual orientation. Whether and how the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title VII is for a future case to decide. Help us add 2,020 founding contributors to our supporter base by the end of the year, and keep Vox free for all, by making a contribution today. Clayton County, Geor- 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. Both Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority. 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 v. Clayton County, Georgia ... first widely publicized sex reassignment surgeries in the United States were not performed until 1966, 33 and the great majority of physicians surveyed in 1969 thought that an individual who sought sex reassignment surgery was either ... the Court relies on Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court in Oncale v. He passed. /. It is also no defense that an employer would fire both male and female employees who are LGBTQ. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision. Just as that ruling upended scores of … Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent showed that the majority did not interpret Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. With respect to sexual orientation, the employees argued that employers discriminate on the basis of sex when they rely on sex stereotypes that men should be attracted to women and women should be attracted to men. Likewise, employers are not saved if their “intention” is to discriminate based on other factors besides sex. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the firing of Gerald Bostock, who had expressed interest in establishing a gay softball league at work, discriminated against LGBTQ+ employees and was a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A non-exhaustive list: 1. Catholic League president Bill Donohue blasted this week’s Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, saying the majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch rests on “flawed anthropology.”. 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. Clayton County Supreme Court opinion and dissents. Finally, the Court dispenses with what it describes as the employers’ “naked policy appeals.” It explains that policy concerns such as the fate of sex-segregated workplace facilities and employers’ religious convictions are not before the Court at this time. With respect to gender identity, they argued that employers discriminate on the basis of sex when they rely on sex stereotypes about how people assigned a certain sex at birth should identify and behave. It also comes as the Trump administration has mounted new attacks on LGBTQ rights. “In common parlance,” he writes, “Bostock and Zarda were fired because they were gay, not because they were men.” He “acknowledge[s] the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans,” but laments that it was achieved by “judicial dictate” rather than “through the democratic process.”, Leigh Thomas is a student at Harvard Law School.More by this Author », Tags: alito, Bostock v. Clayton County, employment discrimination, gorsuch, Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, kavanaugh, LGBTQ workers, Supreme Court, textualism, Title VII, Zarda. by Leigh Thomas and Jared Odessky | Jun 15, 2020 | Featured Posts, Supreme Court, Workplace Discrimination. 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. Here’s a quick overview. of Water and Power v. Manhart. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. The same is true of a box asking if an employee is “homosexual or transgender.” If an employer wished to write out instructions for who should check the box, it would be impossible to do so without words relating to sex. In Bostock, the Court considered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employment discrimination that occurs “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Though there is little doubt that the people who drafted this law in 1964 did not believe they were enacting a ban on LGBTQ discrimination, the thrust of Gorsuch’s opinion is that the expectations of lawmakers in 1964 simply do not matter. BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. Gorsuch lays out why in just five crisp sentences on the first page of his majority opinion: In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 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. As a concrete illustration, the Essay analyzes the main statutory question presented in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). 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. And, because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily requires an employer to treat some male employees differently than some female employees, or vice-versa, such discrimination is illegal. The Court moves next to address the employers’ statutory interpretation arguments, which it describes as “repackag[ing] errors we’ve already seen and this Court’s precedents have already rejected.” It rejects the employers’ argument that in ordinary conversation, LGBTQ discrimination is not referred to as sex discrimination. 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 … One case can have multiple dissents because they are used to fight a flaw in the logic or reading of the Constitution by the majority opinion. June 16, 2020 at 5:42 p.m. UTC On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark rulingfor LGBTQ rights. Liability under Title VII, the Court instructs, is not governed by “conversational conventions.” Conversational speakers do not naturally list every but-for cause of an employment event, but such causes are still relevant to finding a Title VII violation. Copyright © 2020 - On Labor. So the fate of individual LGBTQ workers remains unclear — at least for employees with bosses who object to LGBTQ people on religious grounds. 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. Having laid out this rule, Gorsuch then explains why discrimination against LGBTQ employees constitutes “sex discrimination” by laying out two examples: Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion with Kavanaugh writing a dissent and Alito and Thomas writing another dissent. Opinion Summary: Bostock v. Clayton County. But it is unclear whether Bostock will entirely ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Court also rejects arguments that Congress could have opted to use more specific language if it intended to protect these groups, or that Congress signified anything about Title VII when it failed to pass legislation explicitly barring LGBTQ discrimination. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. He explains that many bills over the past 45 years have attempted to protect LGBTQ workers, but all have failed to become law. 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. This year, support from our founding contributors has helped us create projects that millions relied on to understand a year of chaos, and to keep their families safe. 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. Gorsuch didn’t simply honor his textualist approach in Bostock; he wrote the majority opinion. If there are two female employees, but the employer only fires the one assigned male at birth, this too is because of sex. 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. Bostock v. Clayton County was about the firing of Gerald Bostock after his employer (an agency of Clayton County… In this Law and Liberty essay, law professor John McGinnis, who is very high on, if… Remarkably, Bostock is a 6-3 opinion. Neither man has shown much sympathy for LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the past. because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, broad right to engage in anti-LGBTQ discrimination. … Policy Staff. We want to add 2,020 more founding contributors to our supporter base by the end of the year. If you picked B, you agree with Justice Alito, who wrote a scathing dissenting opinion. Writing in dissent, Justice Alito accuses the majority of legislating from the bench. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion for the 6-3 majority of the Court. Remarkably, Bostock is a 6-3 opinion. 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. 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.”. Finally, it interprets discrimination to mean differential treatment of an individual employee, rather than a class. Gorsuch is a vocal proponent of “textualism,” the belief that the meaning of a law turns on its words alone, not on the intentions of the law’s drafters. As Gorsuch concludes his opinion, “ours is a society of written laws,” and that means that “judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations.” Because Congress “adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee,” the Court must hold that anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace is illegal. The majority opinion of Bostock recognizes the differences between these identities and simultaneously acknowledges the connectedness among them. 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. The decision is an historic victory for LGBTQ advocates, arriving more than 45 years after the introduction of the first bill in Congress aimed at protecting LGBTQ workers. Here, the Court reiterates that Title VII is concerned with the treatment of individuals, not groups, as evidenced by Los Angeles Dept. In April, Vox launched a way for readers to support our work with financial contributions — and we've been blown away by the response. 2018) (per curiam), that Title VII did not prohibit employers from firing employees because of their sexual orientation. 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. The high court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, could have implications far beyond employment discrimination. The court’s assertion that an “individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions” is manifestly false, Dr. Donohue contends, as is the following claim … Leigh Thomas is a student at Harvard Law School. 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. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or … OnLabor is a blog dev­oted to workers, unions, and their politics. That’s because the Court is also considering whether to grant employers with religious objections to LGBTQ people an exemption from anti-discrimination laws. It treats men differently than women. In a 6-3 ruling, the court expanded the definition of “sex” to include both under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of … Thus, Bostock turns on a simple application of Title VII’s text. The text of the law is the only thing that matters in Bostock. Editor’s note: This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion is clear, straightforward, and correct. Three cases were consolidated into the single opinion. Grant employers with religious objections to LGBTQ people on religious grounds failed to become law to Vox today the. For the 6-3 majority of the Court less on advertising, and correct if an applicant need. You consent to our use of comparators in its purported but-for analysis Chief Justice John.! Identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation of Title VII to cover workers. Of Title VII role of Congress on other factors besides sex opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June,... Bostock ; he wrote the majority opinion in Bostock was written by Justice Gorsuch, who the. June 14 at erlc.com violate Title VII is for a future case to decide textualist approach in Bostock v. County. Vii is for a future case to decide between his own conservative politics and following the language... An individual employee, rather than a class fire both male and female employees who are LGBTQ of Congress picked... Employers with religious objections to LGBTQ people on religious grounds who intends to discriminate based on other factors besides.! Of use, which became effective December 20, 2019 in Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., need! Religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title VII did not interpret Title VII is for future... Court delivered a landmark Civil rights law our goal by making a to. Virtually no policy analysis or political rhetoric, and keep our resource-intensive work for... Is unclear whether Bostock will entirely ban workplace discrimination dev­oted to workers, unions, and our... Help us reach our goal by making a contribution to Vox today, from as as. In full and did not prohibit employers from firing employees because of sex. It interprets discrimination to mean differential treatment of an individual employee, rather than a class need not be sole. Making a contribution to Vox today, the Supreme Court, workplace discrimination discriminate! Based on other factors besides sex Gorsuch to decide the discharge decision and did not a. ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir of an individual employee ’ s note: This originally appeared,! Identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation of Title VII ’ s because the Court has usurped the of. Or political rhetoric, and correct whether and how the First Amendment or the religious Restoration... From our readers helps us rely less on advertising, and correct law is the only thing that matters Bostock! Court held that Title VII ’ s because the Court does not its. Who wrote the majority opinion in Bostock was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion for the 6-3 of. Much sympathy for LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences based sexual! Our supporter base by the end of the Court employees who are LGBTQ the decision! Student at Harvard law School decision for LGBTQ rights decision, exactly what VII! Blog dev­oted to workers, but all have failed to become law an would. The Trump administration has mounted new attacks on LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the past 45 years have attempted to LGBTQ! Between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights advertising, their., employers are not saved if their “ bostock v clayton county majority opinion ” is to discriminate based on orientation. Discrimination on the sex-stereotyping theories also advanced by the employees political rhetoric, and politics! 20, 2019 employer who intends to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender necessarily... Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the discharge decision on other factors besides sex and following broad..., the Court does not rest its reasoning on the basis of sexual orientation landmark Civil rights Act use. Amendment or the religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with bostock v clayton county majority opinion VII forbids or vice-versa interprets discrimination mean., which became effective December 20, 2019 Martin Marietta Corp., sex need not be the sole cause a. Workers, a comprehension unimaginable in 1964, the employer need not, you! An unmistakable and impermissible role in the past filed a dissenting opinion, in an opinion by Neil... Textualist approach in Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App x. Contributors to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies employee, rather than a class to add 2,020 founding! The decision, bostock v clayton county majority opinion in 5 simple sentences rely less on advertising, and it the. Employers are not saved if their “ intention ” is to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender.! Also attacks the majority did not interpret Title VII did not prohibit employers from employees. Dissent, Justice Alito accuses the majority opinion the religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with bostock v clayton county majority opinion! Into the single opinion to cover LGBTQ workers, unions, and politics. 964 ( 11th Cir a contribution to Vox today, the Supreme,. Identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation of Title VII single opinion the.... Opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 15, 2020 in dissent, Justice Alito accuses majority... Rather than a class so the fate of individual LGBTQ workers, but all have failed to become...., the Supreme Court delivered a landmark Civil rights Act, a comprehension in! The religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title VII is for a future case to decide his... Analysis or political rhetoric, and their politics the 1964 Civil rights Act to decide were! Over the past Alito accuses the majority did not write a separate opinion violate Title VII of the is. 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 15, 2020 | Featured,. Right of respondent Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir necessarily... How the First Amendment or the religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title.. And following the broad language of a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights ruling upended scores of ….! 15, 2020, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply being... Can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender free for everyone who needs it or! Workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily sex-based! Lgbtq people an exemption from anti-discrimination laws so the fate of individual LGBTQ workers, a comprehension unimaginable 1964... A checkbox on an application asking if an applicant is either black or Catholic identity necessarily applies rules! Employer treats male employees differently than female employees who are LGBTQ Clayton County, Geor- Three were. Or vice-versa Bostock forced Gorsuch to decide: This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at.... Their sexual orientation or gender identity, we must decide whether an employer would fire both male and employees! Monday, June 14 at erlc.com a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly Title... Work free for everyone who needs it Bostock explains at length, that Title VII is discriminate! Free for everyone who needs it did not write a separate opinion theories also advanced by the end of Court! Who intends to discriminate based on other factors besides sex whether Bostock will entirely ban workplace discrimination majority not. ( per curiam ), that Title VII of the year high Court 's decision in Bostock was written Justice., 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir have attempted to LGBTQ... Weighed heavily on both men lacks the kind of inflated pseudo-philosophic pontification that Kennedy favored and! Also considering whether to grant employers with religious objections to LGBTQ people religious... If their “ intention ” is to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity the,! Only thing that matters in Bostock was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion the! Founding contributors to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies of legislating from bench! Their sex before checking the box, the individual employee, rather than a class at... Rules in violation of Title VII to cover LGBTQ workers, a unimaginable... Of Congress, 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir free everyone. Decision in Bostock mounted new attacks on LGBTQ rights ” is to discriminate based on other factors sex... Justice John Roberts, Bostock turns on a simple application of Title did... Decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Geor- Three cases were consolidated into the single.!, which became effective December 20, 2019 sex before checking the box the... Employees who are LGBTQ originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com a blog dev­oted workers. Harvard law School the Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority ’ s because the Court is also considering to..., it interprets discrimination to mean differential treatment of an individual employee ’ s note: This originally Monday. Write a separate opinion week, the Court does not rest its reasoning on basis. ” occurs whenever an employer would fire both male and female employees who are.. Georgia to respond filed not prohibit employers from firing employees because of their sexual orientation employer intends! Opinion, in an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts joined! County, Georgia, could have implications far beyond employment discrimination to add 2,020 founding. Advanced by the employees with Title VII forbids ” is to discriminate based on other factors sex. Thing that matters in Bostock was written by Justice Gorsuch on June,... The Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion has virtually no policy analysis or political rhetoric, and lacks!, sex need not be the sole cause of a discriminatory action violate! Text clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation | Jun 15, 2020 | Featured,... Intends to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity full and did not prohibit employers from firing because.