Bostock v. Clayton County

The plaintiff, Gerald Bostock, was fired from his county job after he expressed interest in a gay [[softball]] league at work. The lower courts followed the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]]'s past precedent that Title VII did not cover [[Employment discrimination law in the United States#LGBTQ employment discrimination|employment discrimination based on sexual orientation]]. The case was consolidated with ''[[Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda]]'', a similar case of apparent discrimination due to sexual orientation from the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]], but which had added to a [[circuit split]]. Oral arguments were heard on October 8, 2019, alongside ''[[R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]'', a similar question of Title VII discrimination relating to transgender persons.

The plaintiff, Gerald Bostock, was fired from his county job after he expressed interest in a gay [[softball]] league at work. The lower courts followed the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]]'s past precedent that Title VII did not cover [[Employment discrimination law in the United States#LGBTQ employment discrimination|employment discrimination based on sexual orientation]]. The case was consolidated with ''[[Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda]]'', a similar case of apparent discrimination due to sexual orientation from the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]], but which had added to a [[circuit split]]. Oral arguments were heard on October 8, 2019, alongside ''[[R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]'', a similar question of Title VII discrimination relating to transgender persons.

On June 15, 2020, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision covering all three cases that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex" as prohibited by Title VII. According to Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]]'s majority opinion, that is so because employers discriminating against gay or transgender employees accept a certain conduct (e.g., attraction to women) in employees of one sex but not in employees of the other sex.

On June 15, 2020, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision covering all three cases that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex" as prohibited by Title VII. According to Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]]'s majority opinion, that is so because employers discriminating against gay or transgender employees accept a certain characteristic (e.g., attraction to women) in employees of one sex but not in employees of the other sex.

The ruling has been hailed as one of the most important legal decisions regarding [[LGBTQ rights in the United States]], along with ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' (2003) and ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015).{{cite news |last1=Barbaro |first1=Michael |title=A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-lgbtq.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 16, 2020 |access-date=16 June 2020}} Many legal analysts claimed that the case defined Gorsuch as a [[Textualism|textualist]] in [[statutory interpretation]].{{cite web | url = https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/justice-gorsuch-textualism/614461/ | title = Justice Gorsuch's Legal Philosophy Has a Precedent Problem | first= Josh | last= Blackman | date = June 24, 2020 | work = [[The Atlantic (magazine)|The Atlantic]] }}

The ruling has been hailed as one of the most important legal decisions regarding [[LGBTQ rights in the United States]], along with ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' (2003) and ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015).{{cite news |last1=Barbaro |first1=Michael |title=A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-lgbtq.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 16, 2020 |access-date=16 June 2020}} Many legal analysts claimed that the case defined Gorsuch as a [[Textualism|textualist]] in [[statutory interpretation]].{{cite web | url = https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/justice-gorsuch-textualism/614461/ | title = Justice Gorsuch's Legal Philosophy Has a Precedent Problem | first= Josh | last= Blackman | date = June 24, 2020 | work = [[The Atlantic (magazine)|The Atlantic]] }}