• by:
  • 2020-06-16
  • Source: The American Dossier
  • 06/21/2020
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a lengthy opinion holding that, “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” The High Court went on to write, “Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. 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." 

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a separate dissenting opinion. 

The opinion styled, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, was written as a consolidated opinion with Altitude Express, Inc. v Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver, said: “The majority opinion departs from the clear language of Title VII and is no less than legislation from the bench. While the case did not include a religious freedom defense, the Court expressly stated that religious employers will likely have a valid defense under the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” 

Two lower federal courts (Bostock and Altitude Express) disagreed on whether the plain wording of the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should include “sexual orientation.” A third case (Harris Funeral Homes) ruled that the law should include “gender identity.” 

The majority opinion assumes that “sex” in Title VII refers to biological male and female, and then states: 

"From the ordinary public meaning of the statute’s language at the time of the law’s adoption, a straightforward rule emerges: An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff ’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to dis- charge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred. Title VII’s message is “simple but momentous”: An individual employee’s sex is “not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees.” Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228, 239 (1989) (plurality opinion). 
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 be- cause 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. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision."
The majority opinion continued: “First, it’s irrelevant what an employer might call its discriminatory practice, how others might label it, or what else might motivate it. . . . Second, the plaintiff ’s sex need not be the sole or primary cause of the employer’s adverse action. . . . Finally, an employer cannot escape liability by demonstrating that it treats males and females comparably as groups.” 

Regarding the fact that Title VII did not include “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” the Court wrote: 

"We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex. But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second. Nor is there any such thing as a “canon of donut holes,” in which Congress’s failure to speak directly to a specific case that falls within a more general statutory rule creates a tacit exception. Instead, when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, courts apply the broad rule. And that is exactly how this Court has always approached Title VII." 
On pages 32-33, the majority opinion addressed a future religious freedom defense, which was not part of the defense in any of the three cases. In the lower court, Harris Funeral Homes did raise the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). After receiving an adverse ruling, Harris Funeral Homes did not present that important legal question before the Supreme Court, which for this employer was likely a fatal mistake. Regarding religious liberty, the Court wrote: 

"Separately, the employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some employers to violate their religious convictions. We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society. But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious liberties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s pas- sage. As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law, Congress included an express statutory exception for religious organizations. §2000e–1(a). This Court has also recognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 188 (2012). And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. §2000bb–1. Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases. See §2000bb–3. 

But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too. Harris Funeral Homes did unsuccessfully pursue a RFRA-based defense in the proceedings below. In its certiorari petition, however, the company declined to seek review of that adverse decision, and no other religious liberty claim is now before us. 
N/A by N/A is licensed under N/A N/A
©2020, The American Dossier. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy