ºìÌÒÊÓƵ

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity

This landmark case marks a major victory for the country's LGBTQ+ community. But what does it actually mean in practice? And what do people need to know about what Title VII does — and does not — cover?

In light of the decision, ºìÌÒÊÓƵ Senior Lecturer Theo Myhre breaks down the Bostock v. Clayton County case and provides key insights into its impacts, as well as the work still to be done in the fight for equal rights for LGBTQ+ populations.

Read the Transcript

Theo Myhre: Hello, I'm professor Theo Myhre from the ºìÌÒÊÓƵ and I want to talk to you about the Bostock case, a decision the United States Supreme Court just handed down and everybody is talking about it.

Three-Minute Legal Tips: What is Bostock v. Clayton County?

TM: First, Bostock is not one case, it's actually three cases. The first case involves a person named Bostock who was fired by their employer for playing on a gay softball team. The second case involves a person named Zarda who was fired by their employer for coming out as gay and the third case involves a

person named Stephan's who was fired by the funeral home they work for when they were hired as a man but transitioned into becoming a transgendered woman. The legal question is whether sexuality and transgendered status fall under the protections of the Title VII Anti-Discrimination statute. The Supreme Court then saw these circuit courts arguing with each other and they took the case to give us an answer and they gave us a definitive answer in a 6-3 decision: sexuality and transgendered status both fall under the statutory definition of what sex means.

TMLT: What set the stage for the Supreme Court case?

TM: So, Title VII was enacted in 1964 and the legislature never, never gave us a definition of what sex means, but we have had cases that took the definition of sex and applied it to gender. So, a woman, for instance, who was denied employment because she had small children, her gender role was seen as falling under, on the basis of sex, as a protected category. We've also seen it in a case where a woman was denied promotion time and time again because she was not feminine enough. She presented as too masculine. So, when we come to these cases then we actually see that sex equals gender roles. Sex equals gender expression. Sex equals both male and female and now sex also equals sexuality and transgendered status.

TMLT: What should people know about the Supreme Court’s decision?

TM: The decision itself though is only a statutory interpretation. That means that the Supreme Court, particularly justice Gorsuch was very clever in limiting this interpretation only to the statute. There's no constitutional argument being made. What does it address? Only employment discrimination. What doesn't it cover? Everything else. So, the health care rights, parenting or adoption rights, housing rights.  Virtually everything else is not covered by this decision. So, that means that where we go to from here in Pride Month is we celebrate the victory. We say, "Yes, this is excellent for LGBTQ civil rights in terms of employment, but there are still fights to be had."