Raine Smith 1

Case name: Bostock v. Clayton County

Case citation: 590 U.S. _____ (2020)
Facts: Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia, for a
decade; the county won national awards for its child welfare work under Bostock. Bostock
began playing in a gay recreational softball league, and shortly thereafter he was fired.
Members of the community allegedly made derogatory and belittling comments about Bostock’s
sexual orientation, and the county stated that his actions were “unbecoming” of a county
employee, for which he was fired. Bostock sued the county in district court arguing that he was
fired because of his sexual orientation, which violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The county moved to dismiss the case by arguing that Title VII does not include sexual
orientation and the court dismissed the case; Bostock appealed to the Eleventh Circuit where
the court stated the case could be dismissed as a matter of law. Two other circuit courts
reached opposite conclusions in similar cases: Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. and R.G. & G.R.
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC & Aimee Stephens. Donald Zarda was fired from Altitude
Express just days after he mentioned he was gay and R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes fired Aimee
Stephens after she informed her employers that she was going to be living and working as a
woman; Aimee had presented as a male when she was hired and after being diagnosed with
gender dysphoria, she began to live as a woman.
Procedural history: Bostock sued the county in district court, where the court dismissed the case
on the county’s motion that Title VII does not include sexual orientation. Bostock appealed to
the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where the court affirmed the district court’s
decision saying that the law does not prohibit employers firing employees based on sexual
orientation and that Bostock’s suit could be dismissed as a matter of law. Bostock then
appealed the Eleventh Circuit’s holding to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Does employer discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation constitute
as a form of sexual discrimination as prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Decision (or answer): The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects
employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender; the Court held that
employers could not discriminate against an employee or potential employee based on their
sexual orientation or gender identity (transgender).
Reasoning: The Court held that firing or discriminating against an employee merely because
said employee is gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity is sex discrimination, which is
a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Gorsuch stated that it is impossible to
discriminate against a homosexual or transgender individual without discriminating against that
individual based on sex. The majority held that an individual’s homosexuality and/or transgender
status is inextricably bound with sex.