Bostock v. Clayton County
| Bostock v. Clayton County | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated October 8, 2019 |
||||
| Decided June 15, 2020 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Clarification of whether an employer who fires a person simply for being gay or transgender is in violation of Article VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 | ||||
| decision | ||||
| Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , was a major case in the United States Supreme Court where the court ruled that Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity .
The plaintiff, Gerald Bostock, was fired after showing an interest in a gay softball league in the workplace . The lower courts followed the previous 11th District precedent that Article VII did not cover protection against discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation. This and two similar cases were discussed on October 8, one of which was about an issue of discrimination under Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in relation to transgender persons.
On June 15, 2020, in a 6-to-3 ruling by Judge Neil Gorsuch , covering all three cases , the Court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is also "discrimination based on gender" like them is prohibited by Article VII. In the strict textualistic analysis of the Court, this is the case because employers who discriminate against gay or transsexual workers accept certain behavior (e.g. attraction to women) in workers of one sex, but not in workers of the opposite sex. The disapproving judges accused the judges of majority opinion of drafting a result from the judge's seat that the 1964 legislators neither wanted nor foreseen.
Supreme Court
Since Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly only prohibits discrimination in the workplace "on the grounds of [...] sex", Bostock applied to the Supreme Court for a Certiorari injunction on the question of whether this article also covers sexual orientation. The application was supplemented by two similar cases, one of which also raised the question of coverage of gender identity. In April 2019, the application was accepted by the court and arguments were put forward on October 8, 2019 as to how the wording should be understood.
Since it was a legal text from 1964 to be interpreted - at a time when homosexuality and transsexuality were hardly present in society - Samuel Alito's allegations that Gorsuch had betrayed his traditional methodology, originalism , are also reflected in the judgment . The originalistic interpretation methodology is about either researching the will of the legislature at that time (English original intent ), or determining how a legal provision was then understood (English textualism ).
While Gorsuch insists that the legislature wanted to protect employees against any sexually motivated discrimination at the time, Alito objected that the legislature did not intend to protect sexual minorities.
decision
Majority opinion
Judge Neil Gorsuch announced the court's decision on the case on June 15, 2020. In a 6-to-3 ruling, the court found that Article VII protection under 42 USC § 2000e-2 (1) (a) also extends to sexual orientation and gender identity. So the decision was about the legal interpretation of the article and not about constitutional law , as in other significant recent cases involving the rights of LGBTQ people, such as: B. in the decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges . Gorsuch also shared the majority view, suggesting that the answer to the question of whether "an employer can fire someone just because they are gay or transgender" is no. He wrote:
“An employer who fired 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. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit. "
“An employer who fired a person for being gay or transgender is firing that person for qualities or actions that they would not have questioned in a person of the opposite sex. Gender plays a necessary and irresistible role in the decision, exactly what Article VII forbids. Those who passed the Civil Rights Act may not have expected their work to lead to this particular outcome. But the limits of the writers' imagination are no reason to ignore the demands of the law. Only the written word is the law and all persons are entitled to its use. "
Contradiction
Judge Samuel Alito had a conflicting opinion, which Judge Clarence Thomas followed. Alito argues that at the time the Civil Rights Act was drafted in 1964, the concepts of sexual orientation and transsexuality were unknown and therefore the language of Congress should not implicitly cover these facets. He wrote that “many will applaud today's decision because, for political reasons, they have agreed to allow the Court to update Article VII. However, the question in these cases is not whether discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity should be prohibited. The question is whether Congress did this in 1964. He undeniably did not. ”He also writes that“ even if discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be forced into an obscure understanding of gender discrimination, the context in which Article VII was enacted would tell us that this is not what the terms of the law were understood to be at that time. "
Aftermath
The New York Times commented on June 15, 2020 that the ruling focused on discrimination in the workplace, but that “Legal scholars say his language enforces expanded civil rights protection in education, healthcare, housing and other areas of daily life could".
See also
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 US ___ (2020). Retrieved June 16, 2020 (English).
- ↑ Case Page: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. SCOTUSblog, accessed on June 16, 2020 (English).
- ↑ Tucker Higgins: Supreme Court clashes over meaning of 'sex' in LGBT discrimination cases. NBC , October 8, 2019, accessed June 16, 2020 .
- ↑ Pete Williams: In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination. NBC , June 15, 2020, accessed June 16, 2020 .
- ^ Adam Liptak: Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules. In: The New York Times . June 15, 2020, accessed on June 16, 2020 .
- ↑ Pete Williams: In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination. NBC , June 15, 2020, accessed June 16, 2020 .
- ↑ Harper Neidig: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules. In: thehill.com. June 15, 2020, accessed on June 16, 2020 .
- ^ Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole: Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination. CNN , June 15, 2020, accessed June 16, 2020 .
- ↑ Margot Sanger-Katz, Erica L. Green: Supreme Court Expansion of Transgender Rights Undercuts Trump Restrictions. In: The New York Times . June 15, 2020, accessed on July 18, 2020 .