All Rights Reserved, This is a BETA experience. This changed in June when the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a landmark 6-3 decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1737 (2020), that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status. . Beyond these implications, there will almost certainly be a great deal of litigation related to the interplay between federal civil rights laws and employers’ religious beliefs. My book, “You’re Pregnant? 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. For instance, a man who’s fired for being gay isn’t fired because he’s attracted to men. Here, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination applied to same-sex sexual harassment. Aug 10 2018: Brief of respondent Clayton County, Georgia in opposition filed. In R.G. The potential implications of the Bostock decision are sweeping.

Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1746-47. They also contended that this decision could result in a violation of an employer’s religious beliefs. ( Log Out /  1 thought on “ About Brett Kavanaugh’s Dissent to Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia ” Concord Green June 22, 2020 at 3:29 pm.

and G.R. 17-1618, Gerald Bostock was fired from his job after he began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Altitude Express fired Donald Zarda days after he mentioned being gay. I’m an employment lawyer who writes about your workplace rights. 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. Despite the EEOC’s position on the matter, not all courts agreed.

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. Don’t Say That! 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. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, No. Justice Gorsuch botched Bostock v. Clayton County ruling on homosexual and transgender 'rights' Supreme Court's decision is lawlessness. Sadly, Mr. Zarda and Ms. Stephens both passed away before the Supreme Court issued its decision. Nobody at the time would have thought that the term “sex” meant “sexual orientation” or “gender identity at odds with biological sex,” yet the Supreme Court, in Bostock v. Clayton County… We focus on workplace law helping protect the rights of clients facing pregnancy and caregiver discrimination, sexual harassment and wrongful termination in the workplace. Aug 24 2018 The employers also expressed concern that the Bostock decision, if decided in the employees’ favor, could create a slippery slope of eliminating sex-segregated locker rooms and bathrooms. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split over the scope of Title VII’s protections. The final case was Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, and concerned Donald Zarda who was fired as a skydiving instructor after his employer learned that he was gay. Back in October 2019, I talked about how the Supreme Court heard a series of cases that could decide if sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination was prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. Amanda Hainsworth is an Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. ( Log Out /  While he was considered one of the “wild cards,” he is still considered a conservative and was appointed by President Trump. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of …

Bostock also has potential implications for the standard of review that should be applied to federal equal protection claims involving discrimination against LGBTQ people. 18-107, Aimee Stephens was fired from her job after penning a letter to her employer disclosing her transgender status and intent to live and work full-time as a woman. Instead, Title VII prohibits all forms of sex discrimination, however such discrimination might manifest and regardless of how else the discrimination might be characterized.

& G.R. Although Massachusetts’s nondiscrimination law has protected LGBTQ people from employment discrimination for years, see G.L. During his ten-year career with Clayton County, Bostock received positive performance evaluations and numerous accolades. 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. v. S.C.: A New Family Law Removal Inquiry Established by the Appeals Court, Why Fraud Matters When Using R&W Insurance: Revising ABRY and EMSI, DACA, Dreamers, and the Limits of Prosecutorial Discretion: DHS v. Regents of the University of California, Protecting Trade Secrets During (and After) a Global Pandemic: Practical Tips for Employers, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), IRS Focus on Tax Reporting of Virtual Currency Transactions, Commonwealth v. McCarthy: License Plate Reader Technology Can Trigger Constitutional Protections. The second case, R.G. Gerald Bostock, a Georgia child welfare services coordinator, said he was dismissed in 2013 for unspecified "unbecoming conduct" after his employer learned he … ( Log Out /  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. Change ), You are commenting using your Twitter account.

Toll Free: 800.733.9529, Registration / Class Schedule Information, Texas A&M University Graduate and Professional Catalog, Stand Up, Step In Against Sexual Violence, Personal Counseling & Career Development Seminars, Important Information for Law Clerks, Externs and Interns – Guidelines for Avoiding Conflicts of Interest, Required Lockstep and Upper-Level Courses, Center for Law and Intellectual Property (CLIP), Field Supervisor Eligibility and the Application Process, Residency Externship Program: Semester-in-Practice, Residency Externship Program in Public Policy, Legal Analysis, Research and Writing Program, Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic, Program in Real Estate and Community Development Law, Leave of Absence for Summer Abroad Program, Student Assistance Program & Work Life Services, Texas Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) for Law Students, Important Information for Law Clerks/Interns. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that being fired based on Mr. Bostock’s homosexuality did not violate Title VII. 1515 Commerce Street With respect to the religious beliefs of employers, Title VII has an explicit exception for religious organizations. Thus, an employer violates Title VII “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer.” Id. Federal courts have been split on whether sex discrimination under Title VII included discrimination because an employee was gay or transgender, resulting in inconsistent court decisions. If he were truly fired for his attracted to other men, then most female employees would probably get fired, too. For example, its reasoning might be used in support of legal efforts to prohibit gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination in other settings including schools and public accommodations. The Court relied heavily on the plain meaning of “because of . Are Non-Disparagement Orders Lawful. Bostock claimed he was fired in 2013 because he is gay. 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. Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. You can learn more about my work at https://www.spigglelaw.com/contact, © 2020 Forbes Media LLC. Rational basis review has been applied to such claims since the Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The Supreme Court reached this decision despite acknowledging that Congress was not primarily concerned with male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace when it drafted Title VII. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Gerald Bostock was a child welfare services coordinator who was fired after his employer found out that … However, Chief Justice Roberts joining the majority was a bit surprising. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, involved Aimee Stephens (formerly known as Anthony Stevens) who worked as a funeral director. In Bostock, the Court unequivocally held that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. Many have contacted our office concerning the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.