In Historic Decision, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Title VII Prohibits LGBTQ Employment Discrimination

The importance of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision related to LGBTQ rights cannot be overstated. The full opinion in Bostock v. Clayton Cty., including two dissents, spans 172 pages. In short, after 56 years, Title VII’s prohibition on employment discrimination “because of” sex, now indisputably bars discrimination based upon sexual orientation and transgender status.  

Certainly, there is great significance in the Court’s decision being issued in the middle of Pride Month, more than 50 years after the Stonewall riots.

More specifically, the Court held as follows:

“In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision and its direct reliance on the statutory language can literally be captured in a single sentence: If an employee is attracted to men, and that is acceptable if they are female yet becomes a terminable offense if they are male, there is discrimination “because of” sex. The majority opinion did not rest on policy or legislative intent, but instead focused on the language of the law. Notably, the majority opinion was drafted by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first nominee to the Court and a well-known conservative, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointee of President George W. Bush.

The Court’s decision painstakingly dismantled each of the counter-arguments raised over the last half-century. For instance, the decision made clear that Title VII is concerned with individuals as opposed to groups. As a result, discriminating against all gay employees – both male and female – is no defense and instead multiplies an employer’s liability. 

Another common refrain in the argument against coverage is neither one’s sexual orientation nor transgender status was what Congress intended to protect in 1964 when it barred discrimination because of sex. This is almost certainly true. In fact, not only were these characteristics never part of the public debate at the time, there is evidence that sex discrimination itself was added to the proposed Civil Rights law in a failed attempt to undermine its passage. Again, the Court in Bostock also had no trouble dispensing with arguments related to Congressional intent. This decision cites various forms of discrimination that are now prohibited, yet were never envisioned in 1964, such as male-on-male sexual harassment, and even the application of the law to males at all. Further, the Court noted that Congressional intent is usually invoked to clarify an ambiguity, not to create one – as it would in this case.  

Three justices dissented from the majority in two separate opinions. The dissenters rehashed the arguments above and decried legislating from the bench. Still, they could not overcome the law itself and the logic applying it to the facts before the Court. They did  note – despite the majority’s assurances of a narrow holding – that the decision “is virtually certain to have far-reaching consequences” as “[o]ver 100 federal statutes prohibit discrimination because of sex,” Including Title IX. In doing so, they specifically confronted the unknown implications for bathroom and locker room access, assignment of college roommates, participation in women’s sports, and pronoun use. The impact on practical, cultural and legal issues remains to be seen. Similarly, the effect on employees, students and other groups, will also, undoubtedly, be widespread.  

Employers should consider reviewing their workplace policies and practices to ensure compliance with the clarified new standard, and should consider training supervisors and Human Resource professionals accordingly.  

To obtain more information, please contact the Barnes & Thornburg attorney with whom you work, or Jason Clagg at 260-425-4646 or jason.clagg@btlaw.com, Gray Mateo-Harris at 312-338-5906 or gray.mateo-harris@btlaw.com, Jeanine Gozdecki at 574-237-1277 or jeanine.godzecki@btlaw.com, or Mark Scudder at 260-425-4618 or mark.scudder@btlaw.com or Dawn Rosemond at 260-425-4650 or dawn.rosemond@btlaw.com.  

You can also contact another member of the Labor and Employment Department:

Kenneth J. Yerkes, Chair
317-231-7513

John T.L. Koenig, Atlanta
404-264-4018

David B. Ritter, Chicago
312-214-4862

William A. Nolan, Columbus
614-628-1401

Mark S. Kittaka, Fort Wayne
260-425-4616

Frank T. Mamat, Detroit Metro
947-215-1320

Keith J. Brodie, Grand Rapids
616-742-3978

Peter A. Morse, Indianapolis
317-231-7794

Scott J. Witlin, Los Angeles
310-284-3777

Michael P. Palmer, South Bend and Elkhart
574-237-1139

© 2020 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.