DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020)

Citation
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020)
Parent Document
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020)
Effective Date
2020-06-15
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4760997/bostock-v-clayton-county/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (1015)

Full Text

1,436 chars 
To be fair, the Court does not claim that Title VII prohibits discrimination because of everything that is related to sex. The Court draws a distinction between things that are "inextricably" related and those that are related in "some vague sense." Ante , at 1741 - 1742. Apparently the Court would graft onto Title VII some arbitrary line separating the things that are related closely enough and those that are not.16 And it would do this in the name of high textualism. An additional argument made in passing also fights the text of Title VII and the policy it reflects. The Court proclaims that "[a]n individual's homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions." Ante , at 1741. That is the policy view of many people in 2020, and perhaps Congress would have amended Title VII to implement it if this Court had not intervened. But that is not the policy embodied in Title VII in its current form. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on five specified grounds, and neither sexual orientation nor gender identity is on the list. As long as an employer does not discriminate based on one of the listed grounds, the employer is free to decide for itself which characteristics are "relevant to [its] employment decisions." Ibid. By proclaiming that sexual orientation and gender identity are "not relevant to employment decisions," the Court updates Title VII to reflect what it regards as 2020 values.