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- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Coronavirus
- Artificial Intelligence
- NLRB
- Title VII
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Worker Classification
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- Compliance
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Harassment
- Supreme Court
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Overtime Pay
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Paycheck Protection Program
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- 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
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA