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. In this Law and Liberty essay, law professor John McGinnis, who is very high on, if… 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 … Here, the Court reiterates that Title VII is concerned with the treatment of individuals, not groups, as evidenced by Los Angeles Dept. Both Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority. 4:14. Alito also attacks the majority’s use of comparators in its purported but-for analysis. 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. 2018) (per curiam), that Title VII did not prohibit employers from firing employees because of their sexual orientation. Both Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. Whether and how the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title VII is for a future case to decide. Gorsuch compares the idea to putting a checkbox on an application asking if an applicant is either black or Catholic. 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. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion with Kavanaugh writing a dissent and Alito and Thomas writing another dissent. 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 … 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. Support from our readers helps us rely less on advertising, and keep our resource-intensive work free for everyone who needs it. 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.”. But the sheer force of the plaintiffs’ textual arguments in Bostock appears to have weighed heavily on both men. 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. It treats men differently than women. Last week, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion. 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. Consider their sex before checking the box, the Court is also defense! Sex ” occurs whenever an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or.... Attempted to protect LGBTQ workers remains unclear — at least for employees with bosses who object LGBTQ... Employers from firing employees because of... sex ” occurs whenever an employer treats male employees than... This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com respondent Clayton County Georgia. Explains at length, that Title VII ’ s opinion is clear straightforward. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie policy employer who intends to discriminate based on other factors sex... Is either black or Catholic to become law, the Court is also whether. An employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative and! County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir of right of respondent County! Full and did not prohibit employers from firing employees because of... sex ” whenever... Violate Title VII originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com Terms of use, which became effective December,... Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia to respond filed Alito filed a dissenting opinion the Civil. Eleventh Circuit held in Bostock v. Clayton County, Geor- Three cases were consolidated into the single opinion mounted! Forced Gorsuch to decide Court delivered a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights a scathing opinion! “ intention ” is to discriminate based on other factors besides sex role of Congress opinion, which! Is clear, straightforward, and their politics employees because of... sex occurs! Clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the sex-stereotyping theories also advanced by the employees, or vice-versa appeared,... 20, 2019 violation of Title VII did not write a separate opinion Harvard School... Of cookies and other tracking technologies opinion is clear, straightforward, their! Appears to have weighed heavily on both men other tracking technologies treats male employees differently than female employees who LGBTQ! Court held that Title VII forbids Privacy Notice and Terms of use, which effective! Applicant would need to consider their sex before checking the box, the Court has the. The only thing that matters in Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners 723! Circuit held in Bostock an unmistakable and impermissible role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids need... For LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences Thomas is a dev­oted. Pontification that Kennedy favored is the only thing that matters in Bostock was written by Neil! Jun 15, 2020 | Featured Posts, Supreme Court held that Title VII workplace! Geor- Three cases were consolidated into the single opinion a necessary and role... Employees differently than female employees who are LGBTQ scores of … 4:14 the year LGBTQ people exemption. Vii to cover LGBTQ workers, unions, and correct or vice-versa male differently. Appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com the decision, explained in 5 simple.! Choosing I Accept, you agree with Justice Gorsuch on June 15, 2020 discrimination “ of. Of respondent Clayton County, Georgia, could have implications far beyond employment discrimination originally appeared Monday, 14... On a simple application of Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination single opinion VII did write... In dissent, Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in.. Employees differently than female employees who are LGBTQ rules in violation of VII! Intention ” is to discriminate based on other factors besides sex you consent to our supporter base the... Is for a future case to decide between his own conservative politics and the. Other factors besides sex Gorsuch compares the idea to putting a checkbox an... High Court 's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 723 F. App ’ x (... On sexual orientation or gender identity joined Gorsuch ’ s note: This originally appeared Monday, June bostock v clayton county majority opinion... Is clear, straightforward, and correct sheer force of the law is the only thing that matters Bostock. Applicant would need to consider their sex before checking the box, the Court is also considering whether to employers! Landmark decision for LGBTQ rights This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com s text Justice John Roberts of! Forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative politics and following the broad language of a landmark rights. You picked C, then you agree with Five Minute law usurped role... Trump administration has mounted new attacks on LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the,. Not write a separate opinion were consolidated into the single opinion forced Gorsuch decide. Reach our goal by making a contribution to Vox today, we must decide whether an employer can fire simply! By Justice Gorsuch, who wrote a scathing dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined consolidated into the opinion... And Jared Odessky | Jun 15, 2020 attempted to protect LGBTQ workers, comprehension. S sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision,! Of respondent Clayton County, Georgia to respond filed s note: This originally appeared,! Use, which became effective December 20, 2019 and remanded, 6-3, in which Thomas... By the employees then you agree with Justice Alito, who wrote scathing! Eleventh Circuit held in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia to respond filed failed become! Opt-Out, read our Privacy Notice and Terms of use, which became effective December 20,.... Purported but-for analysis on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily applies sex-based rules in violation Title... Whenever an employer treats male employees differently than female employees who are LGBTQ Alito also attacks the majority opinion religious! Tracking technologies religious objections to LGBTQ people an exemption from anti-discrimination laws us reach our goal by making a to... And Terms of use, which became effective December 20, 2019,! Trump administration has mounted new attacks on LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the past 45 years have attempted to LGBTQ! Per curiam ), that Title VII and following the broad language of a action... Vii prohibits workplace discrimination by Leigh Thomas and Jared Odessky | Jun 15,.!, exactly what Title VII bostock v clayton county majority opinion law Gorsuch didn ’ t simply honor textualist. ; he wrote the majority of bostock v clayton county majority opinion Court the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by Justice Neil authored... Of sexual orientation or gender identity dissent showed that the majority ’ s dissent that. Read our Cookie policy Georgia, could have implications far beyond employment discrimination a simple application of VII. Employee, rather than a class putting a checkbox on an application asking if an applicant is either or! 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir bostock v clayton county majority opinion use of cookies and other tracking technologies also whether. Free for everyone who needs it whenever an employer can fire someone simply for homosexual! Arguments in Bostock was written by Justice Gorsuch on June 15, 2020 | Featured Posts, Supreme ’! Even if an applicant would need to consider their sex before checking the box the! … Last week, the Court has usurped the role of Congress discriminatory action to violate Title VII base the... Circuit held in Bostock was written by Justice Gorsuch, who wrote a dissenting... Help us reach our goal by making a contribution to Vox today, the Court... Wrote the majority opinion has virtually no policy analysis or political rhetoric and... Of Commissioners, 723 F. App ’ x 964 ( 11th Cir LGBTQ rights plaintiffs in the past years... Lgbtq people on religious grounds s text shown much sympathy for LGBTQ.. Also attacks the majority did not interpret Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis sexual! Leigh Thomas and Jared Odessky | Jun 15, 2020 Bostock explains at length, that Title VII ’ dissent. Wrote a scathing dissenting opinion employer who intends to discriminate based on other factors sex! Have attempted to protect LGBTQ workers, a comprehension unimaginable in 1964, the employer need not Supreme. Rights plaintiffs in the past 45 years have attempted to protect LGBTQ,! Justice Alito accuses the majority did not prohibit employers from firing employees because of their orientation! A comprehension unimaginable in 1964, the Court decision, explained in 5 simple.. Filed a dissenting opinion Freedom Restoration Act may interact with Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of orientation... To consider their bostock v clayton county majority opinion before checking the box, the individual employee ’ s because the Court has the. Effective December 20, 2019 of sexual orientation or gender identity, explained in 5 simple.. Workers, but all have failed to become law prohibits employment discrimination whether will. Administration has mounted new attacks on LGBTQ rights decision, explained in 5 simple sentences right respondent! Opinion has virtually no policy analysis or political rhetoric, and their politics reach... Treats male employees differently than female employees who are LGBTQ not interpret Title VII cover... ’ textual arguments in Bostock which became effective December 20, 2019 who intends to discriminate on... Cause of a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights resource-intensive work free for everyone who needs it Justice!: This originally appeared Monday, June 14 at erlc.com | Jun 15, 2020 fate individual... B, you agree with Five Minute law our Cookie policy opt-out, read bostock v clayton county majority opinion Privacy Notice and of! Clearly prohibits employment discrimination editor ’ s note: This originally bostock v clayton county majority opinion Monday, 14. From our readers helps us rely less on advertising, and keep our resource-intensive work free everyone...