Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
Deciding Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Citation: 590 U.S. 644 (2020)
View on CourtListenerOverview
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark civil rights decision in which the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status. The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, represents a major expansion of Title VII protection and one of the most significant LGBTQ rights decisions in American history.
Facts of the Case
The case consolidated three appeals. Gerald Bostock, a child welfare services coordinator, was fired after his employer discovered he participated in a gay recreational softball league. Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor, was fired days after mentioning he was gay. Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman, was fired after she informed her employer that she would be transitioning.
All three plaintiffs brought claims under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of . . . sex.” The question was whether discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes discrimination because of sex.
The Textualist Approach
Justice Gorsuch applied a textualist interpretation of Title VII. He reasoned that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status necessarily involves discrimination because of sex. To discriminate against someone for being gay or transgender, the employer must consider the employee’s sex in making the employment decision.
The majority held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court applied the but-for causation standard: but for the employee’s sex, the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action. Under this standard, discrimination against a gay man involves treating him differently than a woman attracted to men, which requires considering the employee’s sex.
Responses to Counterarguments
Justice Gorsuch addressed several counterarguments. He rejected the argument that Congress did not intend Title VII to cover sexual orientation or gender identity when it enacted the statute in 1964. The Court held that statutory text controls over legislative expectations about how the text would be applied.
The Court also rejected the argument that the decision would undermine religious liberty. The Court noted that Title VII contains an express exception for religious organizations and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides additional protections.
The Dissent
Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that the majority had rewritten Title VII. The dissent contended that discrimination because of sex was understood in 1964 to mean discrimination based on the biological differences between men and women, not sexual orientation or gender identity. Justice Kavanaugh also dissented, arguing that the Court should have deferred to Congress to amend the statute.
Legacy
Bostock has been applied broadly, extending protections to LGBTQ individuals in employment. The decision has also influenced interpretation of other federal sex discrimination laws, including Title IX and the Affordable Care Act. The case is significant both for its substantive holding and for its textualist methodology, demonstrating how textualism can produce outcomes that surprise both conservative and progressive observers.