{"id":54755,"date":"2022-02-28T16:55:57","date_gmt":"2022-02-28T21:55:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/supreme-court-insights\/bostock-v-clayton-county-case-summary-.html"},"modified":"2022-02-28T16:55:57","modified_gmt":"2022-02-28T21:55:57","slug":"bostock-v-clayton-county-case-summary-","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/supreme-court-insights\/bostock-v-clayton-county-case-summary-.html","title":{"rendered":"Bostock v. Clayton County Case Summary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

Bostock v. Clayton County Case Summary <\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Joseph Fawbush, Esq.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Ally Marshall, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last reviewed\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in part, prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex. In 2020, the Supreme Court held that this protection also extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Bostock v. Clayton County<\/i>. <\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

While one can question how much legislators in 1964 were thinking about lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender workers when they passed the Civil Rights Act, the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County nonetheless found that the plain language of the statute prohibited discrimination against LGBTQ workers.<\/p>\r\n

Title VII now prohibits discrimination based on LGBTQ status because of three consolidated cases: Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. In all three cases, employees were fired because they were gay or transgender. All lived in states and municipalities in which there were no explicit prohibitions against LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace.<\/p>\r\n

Facts of the Case<\/h2>\r\n

Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County, Georgia, for 10 years. After joining a gay softball league, Clayton County fired him for \u201cconduct unbecoming of its employees.” Bostock sued, alleging Title VII protected workers on the basis of sexual orientation. Clayton County did not argue that sexual orientation played no role in his firing; instead, it argued that Title VII does not prohibit such discrimination.<\/p>\r\n

A 2017 decision in the Eleventh Circuit, which is the federal appeals court for Georgia, held that Title VII did not protect LGBTQ workers. Because of this binding precedent, absent a full review by the Eleventh Circuit or further instruction from the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit determined that Bostock did not have a claim in Georgia. The Supreme Court took up the case.<\/p>\r\n

Background<\/h2>\r\n

At the time the Supreme Court decided Bostock, a majority of states had already passed legislation prohibiting workplace discrimination for LGBTQ employees. So, too, had numerous municipalities. Twenty-one states did not have specific legislation, however.<\/p>\r\n

In the past, Congress has attempted to pass legislation amending Title VII to include sexual orientation. In 2007, the House of Representatives passed legislation amending Title VII, and in 2013 the Senate did so, as well. The most recent attempt was 2019. However, in every case, a Democratic-controlled branch of Congress could not pass the law through the other, Republican-controlled branch.<\/p>\r\n

The Arguments In Bostock v. Clayton County<\/h2>\r\n

In a 6-3 decision penned by Justice Neal Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held that Title VII protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. It did so on a plain language reading of the statute, a judicial philosophy known as textualism. Justice Gorsuch was joined by one other Republican-appointed justice, John Roberts, and the four Democratic-appointed justices. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh dissented.<\/p>\r\n

Justice Gorsuch’s Majority Opinion<\/h2>\r\n

Justice Gorsuch began by analyzing the definitions of the words in the relevant statute. Section 703(a) states that it shall be unlawful for an employer \u201cto fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The word at issue, in this case, is \u201csex,” which Justice Gorsuch defined as the biological gender of a person at birth.<\/p>\r\n

Still, even with this definition, a textualist reading of the statute led Justice Gorsuch to conclude that Title VII prohibited discrimination against homosexuality and transgender status by its plain meaning. There were three reasons for this:<\/p>\r\n