Bostock v. Clayton County 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3252
Date of Order: 15th June 2020
Court: Supreme Court, United State of America
In this landmark case, an unexpected victory and interpretation was given to an existing law where the intention of the legislature was understood through the plain reading and meaning of the words.
Facts
Petitioner, X had been working as a child welfare service coordinator since 2003 with Y. Over a period of 10 years as an employee of Y, X received positive evaluations and accolades. However, it was in 2013 that X participated in a gay recreational softball league shortly after which he received criticism for his participation and his sexual orientation.
During a meeting attended by X’s supervisor, members in the meeting made derogatory remarks about X’s sexual orientation. During this time, X was also subjected to an internal audit of the program funds he managed. Subsequently, Y terminated X citing reason as “conduct unbecoming of its employees”.
X filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2016, three years later, X filed a lawsuit against Y alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, his lawsuit was dismissed on failing to state a claim, as X relied on a textualist interpretation of the statute, and that the provision encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Nevertheless, X appealed against this decision.
Issue
Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Analysis and interpretation
The definitions of the relevant words in the statute were analysed wherein the word sex under section 703, (a) is defined as the biological gender of a person at birth, and not the gender assigned by the society. The majority Justice noted that even a textualist reading of the statute prohibits discrimination against homosexuality and transgender. He also gave the following reasoning:
- One cannot consider someone’s sexual orientation without considering the sex.
- Anyone who is fired because of their sex, even if there are other reasons, he still would have been fired in violation of Title VII.
- Title VII protects individuals against discrimination, not groups.
However, Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh separately highlighted their dissent. The former countered the method used to reach the decision, and while the latter highlighted it is Congress’s duty to protect LGBTQ workers, and not Supreme Court’s duty.
Impact
This decision was regarded to be one of the historic decisions, where the employers subject to this law can no longer discriminate against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation, regardless of the state, or municipality they reside in.