June 15, 2020
Decided June 15, 2020
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618;
Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623; and
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107
Today, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses employment discrimination because of a person’s sexual orientation or transgender status.
Background:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees “because of . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Donald Zarda was a former skydiving instructor at Altitude Express. Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare services coordinator for Clayton County, Georgia. Aimee Stephens worked at R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes and originally presented as a male, but later told her employer that she planned to live and work as a woman. All three were fired allegedly because of their sexual orientation or transgender status, and they initiated sex discrimination claims against their former employers under Title VII. In Zarda’s case, the Second Circuit held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a “subset of sex discrimination.” In Bostock’s case, the Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation and affirmed the dismissal of Bostock’s Title VII claim. And in Stephens’ case, the Sixth Circuit held that Title VII applies to discrimination on the basis of transgender status.
Issue:
Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes prohibited discrimination within the meaning of Title VII.
Court’s Holding:
Yes. Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex encompasses sexual orientation and transgender status. An employer violates Title VII when it discharges an employee in part because of sexual orientation or transgender status.
“[I]t is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority
What It Means:
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Mark A. Perry +1 202.887.3667 mperry@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Labor and Employment
Catherine A. Conway +1 213.229.7822 cconway@gibsondunn.com |
Jason C. Schwartz +1 202.955.8242 jschwartz@gibsondunn.com |
© 2020 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Attorney Advertising: The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.