Gerald Bostock was an award-winning county employee in Georgia. After a decade of employment, he joined a gay softball league. As a result, he was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee.
Donald Zarda was a skydiving instructor in New York. To reassure a woman student who was nervous about her first jump, when she would be tethered to her instructor, Mr. Zarda told her, “Don’t worry—I’m 100% gay.” As a result, he was fired.
Aimee Stephens was a funeral director in Michigan. After years of therapy, Ms. Stephens, who was born as a man, told her employer that she was transgender, and would “live and work full-time as a woman.” As a result, she was fired.
For years, the federal courts have struggled with the question of whether the bedrock federal anti-discrimination statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination “because of … sex”, included discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced:
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 statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: 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. Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ____ (2020)
What this means to you:
In barring employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the United States has joined the European Union, South Africa, Canada, and other countries around the world in recognizing these human rights. And the Supreme Court has recognized what smart hiring managers have always known: An individual’s protected characteristics (race, religion, sex—including sexual orientation and gender identity—age, disability, marital status, etc.) are not relevant to employment decisions.
Managers learn about preventing discrimination and strategies for hiring the best in our Managing Within the Law webinar. Our web classes have all the advantages of live training – because they are taught in real time with our attorney-trainers. Keep your managers up to date with our webinars during this time of social distancing. To find out more about our national training programs please call 800-458-2778 or email us.
Updated 07-07-2020
Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.