In an earlier post today, we marked the signing of the Magna Carta and recognized the impact it had on our rights as set forth in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today, 805 years later, our nation takes another leap in its recognition of basic civil rights for its citizens. According to our nation’s highest court, employers who fire gay or transgender persons simply on the basis of their homosexual or transgender status violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This morning, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision protecting members of the LGBTQ community from employment discrimination. In each of the cases that forms the basis of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a long-time employee was fired for simply being gay or transgender. Each employee filed an action under Title VII, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. In two of the cases, the appellate courts ruled that such discrimination did violate Title VII. However, with respect to the third case, the Eleventh Circuit found that the law does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay. In determining the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s mandate that employers not discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, the Supreme Court held that
An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.
In so holding, the Court rejected an argument that in ordinary parlance firing a person for being gay or transgender did not amount to discrimination on the basis of sex because the fired individual would probably admit that they were fired on those grounds rather than because of their sex. Additionally, the Court dismissed an argument that discrimination based on one’s status as gay or transgender did not rise to the level of the disparate treatment showing required because there was no intentional discrimination based on sex on the part of the employer. The Court disagreed, finding that Title VII focuses on discrimination of individuals, not groups. Additionally, the Court stated that just because homosexuality and transgender status are not specifically included on the list of protected characteristics does not necessarily mean that the they are implicitly excluded.
