Skip to main content

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Holds Gay and Transgender Workers Protected From Discrimination Under Title VII


This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued what many would call a landmark 6 - 3 decision:  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), gay and transgender workers cannot be terminated because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Prior to this ruling, Title VII prohibited discrimination against a worker on the basis of their sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.  (This case sought to have gay and transgender workers fall under the scope of “sex” in regard to Title VII protections.)  With the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia earlier this morning, LGBTQ workers will now be a covered class under Title VII.

Writing the majority opinion for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote “In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s she when deciding to fire that employee.  We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice:  An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”  Perhaps sensing potential criticisms of the Court reading a new covered class into the language of Title VII, Gorsuch went on to write “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result.  Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees.  But, the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.  When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest.  Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued the majority opinion went beyond the scope of Title VII by including gay and transgender workers under the scope of “sex” as a protected class.  In a rather pointed dissent, Justice Alito wrote there “is only one word for what the Court has done today:  legislation.”  Justice Alito noted that the U.S. House of Representatives had approved legislation last year that would clarify that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination included discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  (That bill stalled out in the Senate.)  Justice Alito reiterated his belief that the real question before the Court was “not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed.  The question is whether Congress did that in 1964.  It indisputably did not.”

In another dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh also suggested that the majority opinion went too far in broadening the scope of Title VII, noting “the responsibility to amend Title VII elongated to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”  Justice Kavanaugh went on to write that it was the job of Congress to broaden the scope of Title VII, not the Court’s, saying “Because judges interpret the law as written, not as they might wish it were written.”  One interesting part of Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent that I want to note was his acknowledgment of the long, hard fought slog that LGBTQ workers have gone through to achieve equal treatment.  While Justice Kavanaugh applauded their relentless work, he did note that he believed it was the role of Congress, rather than the Court, to extend the protections of Title VII.

Some critics have been quick to rebuke the majority opinion, apparently surprised that traditionally conservative leaning Justices Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the more liberal side of the bench (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer.)  Regardless of where some might stand on the issue, this decision marks one of the Court’s defining cases of this term (and perhaps one of the Court’s most defining cases in recent memory.)


For a copy of the Court’s 172 page opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more