Bostock v. Clayton County

Background

Three employees sued their employers after being fired when they revealed they were gay or transgender: Gerald Bostock (a child-welfare worker), Donald Zarda (a skydiving instructor), and Aimee Stephens (a funeral-home employee). Lower courts divided on whether Title VII's ban on discrimination “because of ... sex” covers homosexuality and transgender status. The Court granted review to resolve that split and the cases reached the Justices together.

Reasoning

The majority focused on Title VII's text: it forbids actions taken “because of” an individual's sex, using ordinary public meaning and a but-for causation test. The Court concluded that firing someone for being homosexual or transgender requires treating that person differently in part because of sex, so such firings violate Title VII. The opinion relied on prior decisions about individual disparate treatment and rejected arguments that Congress's expectations or later legislative choices defeat the statute's plain terms.

Real world impact

The decision means employees fired for being gay or for being transgender can pursue claims under Title VII. The Court affirmed the Second and Sixth Circuit rulings and reversed the Eleventh Circuit, sending that case back for further proceedings. The majority declined to resolve other issues now, including how Title VII interacts with religious-liberty claims, bathrooms, locker rooms, or other laws that use similar language.

Dissents or concurrances

Two dissents argued the Court was effectively making new law better left to Congress; they warned of wide-ranging consequences and urged legislative rather than judicial change.