PS $275$ Case Correction $3$: Bostock V$.$ Clayton County W$24$

Title: Bostock v$.$ Clayton County, Georgia, $590$ U$.$S$.($Note this case was consolidated with Altitude

Express v$.$ Zarda & R$.$G$.$ and G$.$R$.$ Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v$.$ EEOC$)$

Facts:

$$ Gerald Bostock worked as a child warfare advocate in Clayton County, GA$.$

$$ Bostock was fired from his job for breaking a confidentiality agreement.

$$ Bostock filed a lawsuit against Clayton County, alleging that his termination was an act of

employment discrimination based on his sexual orientation.

Procedural History:

$$ Bostock filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in

$2013.$

$$ In $2016,$ Bostock$$s lawyer filed a lawsuit against Clayton County alleging discrimination based on

sexual orientation, violating Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of $1964.$

$$ The district court upheld the lawsuit, finding that Bostock$$s claim relied on an interpretation of

Title VII that was in line with a $1979$ decision that found that Title VII$$s $...$on the basis of sex$$

also applies to sexual orientation.

$$ Clayton County appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court$$s

decision.

$$ The US Supreme Court granted cert petition.

$$ Supreme Court consolidated three similar cases $($Bostock v$.$ Clayton County, Georgia, Altitude

Express v$.$ Zarda, & R$.$G$.$ and G$.$R$.$ Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v$.$ EEOC$)$ for oral arguments

Issue:

$$ Does Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of $1969,$ which prohibits the use of confidentiality

agreements in employment, encompass discrimination based on an individual$$s sexual

orientation and gender identity?

Holding:

$$ In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Title VII$$s prohibition of sex$-$based

discrimination does not include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Rationale:

$$ Gorsuch, writing for the court, focused on the specialized language of Title VII. The Court

interpreted the meaning of the word $$sex$$ to only include an individual$$s assigned sex at birth

and not homosexuality and transgender status. Because very few in $1964$ would have

acknowledged employment discrimination against gay or transgender individuals when the

statute was written in $1964,$ the court relied heavily on legislative history because the language

of the statute clearly states only $$sex$.$

Impact:

$$ This case had no significant impact on workplace protections for LGBTQ$+$ and transgender

individuals.