A Landmark Ruling for Workers
Almost exactly 6 years ago this June, the Supreme Court gave a major boost to worker protections. This boost came in the decision of Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that the termination of an employee based on sexual orientation or gender identity is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Title VII makes it illegal to discriminate in employment practices based on an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Caselaw on these categories, especially as to the definition of sexual discrimination, is extensive. However, prior to Bostock, it was unclear whether LGBTQ+ individuals were covered under Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex. As a result, the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation was left to the states, and dozens of states had yet to explicitly ban discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. Understanding your rights under Title VII is essential, and an experienced Jefferson City, MO employment lawyer can help employees evaluate potential workplace discrimination claims and protect their legal rights.
The Facts of the Case
The facts underlying the Bostock case reflect a straightforward instance of workplace discrimination. Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County, Georgia as an official in the juvenile court system. He worked there for several years, with good performance reviews during his tenure. In 2013, Bostock joined a gay softball league and promoted it as a volunteer opportunity at work. Shortly thereafter, Clayton County fired Bostock, claiming Bostock had committed “conduct unbecoming a county employee.” Bostock rightfully believed this reasoning was pretextual and certainly unlawful. Bostock sued Clayton County for workplace discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII.
From the Lower Courts to the Supreme Court
Bostock’s case lost both at the District and Appellate level. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court’s finding that Title VII does not preclude discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling caused a circuit split, and thus there was not a consistent interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. This split teed up Bostock’s case to be taken up by the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Reasoning
In the Bostock opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that when an employer fires someone based on sexual orientation, they are firing them “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” Therefore, wrote the Court, “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
The Impact on Workers and the LGBTQ+ Community
Such an expansion of Title VII was a massive win for civil rights and for the rights of workers nationwide. The decision extended protections for anyone working in a business with 15 or more workers, a huge swath of the working population. Furthermore, the decision protects a particularly vulnerable class of people. The ACLU noted that in the Bostock decision, by extending the language of Title VII to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Court’s reasoning necessarily prohibits employment discrimination against transgender individuals, thereby strengthening protections for the transgender community. This is particularly important, given the transgender community is subject to sustained attack and prejudice in the present day, especially from powerful lawmakers.
The Bottom Line
The Title VII landscape prior to Bostock was a bit murky with respect to discrimination based on sex. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Title VII unequivocally prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the workplace. In so doing, the Court expanded protection for members of the LGBTQ+ community and workers around the country as a whole.
If you are facing workplace discrimination or have concerns about your rights as an employee, contact TGH Litigation for assistance.