Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a new landmark ruling clarifying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits workplace discrimination—applies to discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. Title VII specifies that it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Although sexual orientation and gender identity are not specifically mentioned in the Act, the Court determined that it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:
“[a]n 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 breadth of Title VII’s protections have been a hotly debated topic, as several lower courts held that applying Title VII protections to homosexual and transgender individuals would require an act of Congress. Nevertheless, the historical significance of this ruling was not lost on the dissent. Justice Brett Kavanagh, who along with Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented, took a moment to acknowledge the meaning of this ruling:
“Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"
Many state and local governments had previously expanded workplace anti-discrimination protections to specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity. With this new ruling, those protections are now guaranteed across the nation. If you have any questions regarding this ruling or how workplace discrimination laws impact your business, please contact a member of KMK Law’s Labor and Employment Group.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Greg Robinson assists his clients in navigating the complex world of workplace laws and regulations. He has counseled clients on a wide array of employment matters, including wage and hour disputes, discrimination charges ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Employment Law
- Labor & Employment Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Tax Credit
- Title VII
- Overtime Pay
- Social Media
- Religion Discrimination
- Employer Policies
- Labor Law
- Employment Litigation
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Coronavirus
- Employer Rules
- Wage & Hour
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- NLRB
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Artificial Intelligence
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- OSHA
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Compliance
- FLSA
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Justice
- Worker Classification
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Supreme Court
- NLRA
- Harassment
- Arbitration
- Diversity
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Litigation
- IRS
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower
- Federal Arbitration Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Paycheck Protection Program
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- Work Opportunity Tax Credit At Risk: Use It Before You Lose It
- IRS Releases Additional Guidance on New Tip and Overtime Tax Deductions for 2025
- EEOC Takes Aim at Perceived Anti-American Bias
- Ohio “Mini-WARN” Act Now In Effect: Key Compliance Takeaways for Employers
- EEOC's Renewed Focus on Religious Discrimination: What Employers Need to Know
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
