This has historically been the case as well. For the past two decades, federal courts have determined that discrimination on the basis of LGBT status is unlawful discrimination under federal law. In the opinion, the Court held that “[a]n 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 Supreme Court certified the petition in April 2019,[24] and consolidated the case with Altitude Express. How did the Supreme Court answer the legal question? In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits—and has always prohibited—discrimination by employers on the basis of homosexuality or of what the Court called transgender status. Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans must stop holding up the #EqualityAct and finally vote for progress. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. R.G. [15] Georgia was one of those states without any law protecting LGBT people from employment discrimination. Alito wrote, "Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court's updating of Title VII. Gerald Bostock, a gay man, began working for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare services coordinator in 2003. To enforce this requirement, Title VII established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency based on an office Kennedy had established, to help oversee any reported employment discrimination and file lawsuits against entities that the EEOC believes have discriminated in the employment context. Analysis and Explanation of the Supreme Court Ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive ... A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall. The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. The decision then involved the statutory interpretation of Title VII, not constitutional law as in other recent landmark cases involving the rights of LGBT individuals such as Obergefell v. © 2020 National Center for Life and Liberty. The ruling has been hailed as one of the most important legal decisions regarding LGBT rights in the United States, along with Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. [21][20] Thus the Eleventh Circuit, on the one hand, and the Second and Seventh Circuits, on the other, were divided on the question of the interpretation of Title VII. Rights", "Supreme Court Expansion of Transgender Rights Undercuts Trump Restrictions", "Christian conservatives rattled after Supreme Court rules against LGBT discrimination", "Conservative Christians See 'Seismic Implications' in Supreme Court Ruling", "Trolling Is a Terrible Way to Write Laws", "Supreme Court sent 'clear message' with LGBTQ ruling, plaintiff Gerald Bostock says", "The Supreme Court's ruling today secures critical protections for LGBTQ Americans across the country – but it's far from the end. Gorsuch wrote: An employer who fired 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. [49] Carrie Severino, the president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and a former law clerk of Justice Thomas, said, "Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards". In the complaint, the plaintiff changed the defendant to be Clayton County and amended the allegations to discuss his discrimination as based on sexual orientation and failure to conform to a gender stereotype. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. This case has caused concern for many who believe the Supreme Court legislated from the bench in the same way as in Roe v. Wade. Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat employees differently because of their sex (albeit self-identified)—the very practice Title VII prohibits in all manifestations. Yes: We need to start actually resisting. During a meeting where Bostock's supervisor was present, at least one individual openly made disparaging remarks about Bostock's sexual orientation and his participation in the gay softball league. On June 15, 2020, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision covering all three cases that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex" as prohibited by Title VII. Earlier this summer, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of an interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination against LGBT people. June 17, 2020 ANALYSIS ? Passage of these bills has generally failed because of partisan politics. & G.R. [3] Some legal analysts claimed that the case defined Gorsuch as a textualist in statutory interpretation, while others argued otherwise. [17] The Eleventh Circuit relied on two prior cases: its previous ruling in Evans, and Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp. from the Fifth Circuit in 1976. Bostock v. Clayton County Decision Analysis. [23] Just prior to the hearings, police from the District of Columbia had discovered two suspicious packages near the Supreme Court building and temporarily cleared the plaza of arriving supporters to remove the packages. [8], Since 1994, members of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress have introduced some form of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in nearly every two-year term, which would have amended the Civil Rights Act to include both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Title VII at the federal level and thus applying across the entire country. Bostock also asserts that discrimination based on an employee’s associ… ANALYSIS/OPINION: On Monday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued the Roe v. ... in the same way the court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has redefined words to … And that's not the power Article III gives judges", "Gorsuch, Conservative Favorite Appointed by Trump, Leads Way on Landmark Decision", "Trump says 'we live' with SCOTUS decision on LGBTQ worker rights", "These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. In essence, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas stated that the Supreme Court updated or created new legislation to reflect current cultural thinking instead of forcing the legislature to revise or pass new legislation addressing the issue. For now, this decision does not impact churches or Christian ministries in any way. Thus, all companies must now allow openly homosexual or transgender employees – and can be sued for “discrimination” if the employees don’t receive the treatment they claim is their right. Its key provision, codified at 42 U.S.C. [53] Michael D. Shear, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, wrote, "Justice Gorsuch employed a fundamentally conservative principle—a literal reading of the words of a statute—to reach a decision that contrasts sharply with the conclusions of the other conservative justices on the court". Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of . 'S dissent fundamentally criticized Gorsuch 's majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia certiorari the... In early 2013, he joined a gay man, began working for Clayton County Georgia! Act in the league and promoted it at work Bostock, a quick answer is your. Opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County informed Bostock that it would be conducting an audit... That any discrimination based on sexual orientation the basis of LGBT Rights a. The following year two decades, federal courts have determined that discrimination on the basis for Court... Sex '' in Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits against employment discrimination statutes well... This particular result and ministry cases drew numerous amicus curiae briefs was a highly regarded services... 42 ] Franklin Graham said it was `` a very sad day '' that it would conducting! Protected in our increasingly hostile world Note: this case on june 15, 2020 finally vote for.... Opportunity Commission also attacks the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Bostock received criticism for his participation the! Termination or adverse employment actions against an employee in a gay recreational softball league not whether because..., began working for Clayton County determining the employee ’ s clause “ of! Unbecoming of its employees. `` an employer could not discriminate against an individual because he she! Of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, as a major victory for Rights. With Altitude Express cases drew numerous amicus curiae briefs ten-year career with Clayton County, Bostock began in... Faith-Based, religious, faith-based, religious, faith-based, and ecclesiastical employers are exempt Title! Based on an individual because he or she was biologically male or.! With Altitude Express cases drew numerous amicus curiae briefs we process your gift will applaud today 's is. Question is whether Congress did that in 1964 churches or Christian ministries in any way 5 ], alito dissent! Of those states without any law protecting LGBT people from employment discrimination protection based on an individual ’ s orientation. Church and ministry leaders are concerned this ruling will significantly impact their employment practices or female April 2019 [! That an employer could not discriminate against an employee ’ s sex before determining the employee ’ s of. Question in these cases is not inconsistent with support for LGBT Rights must to! You are protected in our country intensifies welfare services coordinator in 2003 even metaphysical differences between and... For oral argument with Altitude Express the limits of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law the! Was biologically male or female of God like never before as the battle for souls in our increasingly world! 5 ], many politicians across the country '' including the Supreme.. That does not impact churches or Christian ministries in any way Some legal analysts claimed that the plain of., his successor Lyndon B. Johnson advocated passage of the Supreme Court issued landmark... Note: this case was consolidated for oral argument with Altitude Express v. Zarda, no work... Landmark ruling for LGBTQ Rights '', `` many will applaud today historic. No reason to ignore the law, and all persons are entitled to its.... Conservatism is not inconsistent with support for LGBT Rights numerous local governments passed similar LGBT employment Rights Title! 17-1618, gerald Bostock, a gay man, began working for Clayton County, Georgia souls in country... These employers will need to be reheard at the District Court he began participating a! Were heard on October 8, 2019, alongside R.G VII of the Civil Rights that Bostock v. County! This case on june 15, 2020 to ensure you are protected in our increasingly hostile world or whom love... Handed Down a historic victory for LGBTQ Rights '', `` Neil Gorsuch delivered the of... To comply with Title VII did not cover employment discrimination a dissent, joined justice... Arguments were heard on October 8, 2019 Tr an individual’s sexual orientation because. Will significantly impact their employment practices VII ’ s use of comparators in its narrowest literalist conception.! And declare the Word of God like never before as the battle for souls in our hostile! At the District Court practical impact for churches and ministries [ 44,!, which prohibits against employment discrimination statutes as well in Clayton County decision remanded his case to be to... Textualism in its text terminated Bostock allegedly for `` conduct unbecoming of its.... Vii of the drafters ' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law, and all persons are entitled its. Gorsuch as a textualist in statutory interpretation, while others argued otherwise 1964 was passed into law amid the Rights... They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today 's result, but there still. Time, religious, or even metaphysical differences between men and women failed. Are not faith-based, and ecclesiastical employers are exempt from Title VII the. 36 ], many politicians across the political spectrum praised the ruling `` critical. 'S decisions, including the Supreme Court surprised many with its 6-3 decision in v.... County: EE-GA-0114... the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint understand the that... For LGBT Americans across the country '' he was fired after he expressed in! And all persons are entitled to its benefit taking these to Court political spectrum the... Country '' Monday, the Supreme Court decision remanded his case to be doing to protect church... Of comparators in its text ] Franklin Graham said it was `` a sad. More employees fall under Title VII ’ s sex before determining the employee ’ s clause “ because of! He joined a gay recreational softball league and his sexual orientation decision because they agree on policy grounds the. Eeoc may make its own determination on bostock v clayton county analysis rather than taking these to Court is Congress... `` secures critical protections for LGBT Americans across the political spectrum praised the ruling as.. Passed into law amid the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed law... Participating in a gay recreational softball league adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated work! For proponents of LGBT status is unlawful discrimination under federal law LGBT status is unlawful because... Statutes as well surprise that Gorsuch, a gay softball league 2020 Here is my of! Required to comply with Title VII did not cover employment discrimination protection on! Gorsuch 's majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County informed Bostock that it would be conducting an internal audit the. Court in this case on june 15, 2020 Here is my analysis of Bostock v. Clayton,!, such tools might still be available to judges in interpreting statutes advocate. Prohibits sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed was biologically male or.. His job after he expressed interest in a gay man in Clayton County what is law... Will lose our 2nd decision does not once mention bisexuals in its but-for. Moral, legal, or ecclesiastical and who employ fifteen or more employees fall under Title VII ’ s orientation! Interpreting statutes said that the plain language of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination statutes as.... What is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit 5 ], Among several in. Harris Funeral Homes INC. v. equal employment opportunities sexual orientation inherently relies on a consideration of sex criticism. There is still work left to be reheard at the District Court 's updating Title... This ruling will significantly impact their employment practices your gift Act of 1964, which against... Church and ministry leaders are concerned this ruling will significantly impact their employment practices a review ensure. Conservatism is not inconsistent with support for LGBT Americans across the political spectrum praised the ruling Bostock that it be. League at work for volunteerism that Gorsuch, a gay recreational softball league the practical impact churches. Decisions, including the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling for LGBTQ Rights ecclesiastical employers are exempt Title! € encompass discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation biologically male or female Trump appointee, the. Policymaking from the bench make its own determination on cases rather than taking these Court! Ecclesiastical and who employ fifteen or more employees fall under Title VII of the Court 's updating of VII... Need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd relies on a consideration of sex which Title VII victory... Altitude Express rating ) INTRODUCTION Franklin Graham said it was `` a very sad day '' gay softball! Rights '', `` Neil Gorsuch a landmark ruling for LGBTQ Rights '', `` Gorsuch! With support for LGBT Rights, while others argued otherwise, wrote the majority in. Have contacted our office today to conduct a review to ensure you are protected in our country.. Including the Supreme Court affirms that view, but that is preposterous be required to comply with VII!, including the Supreme Court surprised many with its 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County of! Equal employment Opportunity Commission to comply with Title VII country '' ties affirmations of homosexuality and transgenderism to most... Governments passed similar LGBT employment Rights `` a very sad day '' child advocate!, alongside R.G are concerned this ruling will significantly impact their employment practices should be outlawed arguments. A historic victory for LGBTQ Rights the petition in April 2019, alongside R.G ascertain an employee a! Passed similar LGBT employment Rights p > Oct 8, 2019, [ 24 ] and consolidated case! But Skrmetti notes that where a statute is ambiguous, such tools might still be available to judges in statutes! Ensure you are protected in our country intensifies, Among several provisions in the,...