US Supreme Court: Homosexual or Transgender Status Not A Reason To Dismiss Employees

Must Read

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Follow us

On June 15, the Supreme Court of the U.S decided the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. ‘An employer cannot fire an individual merely for being gay or transgender’, it ruled in a landmark judgement.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The case arose out of a petition filed by Gerald Bostock. Clayton County had fired Gerald Bostock for “conduct unbecoming a county employee”. This was shortly after his participation in a gay recreational softball league. There were two more similar cases where the employers fired their employees for not being sexually oriented as per the societal norms. The employers were sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The allegations levied on them were that of sexual discrimination. 

The said act prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. However, the Court had to consider an entirely different issue. It had to determine whether the Act also bars discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Judgement 

The Court by a majority of 6:3 held in the affirmative. The Civil Rights Act, 1964 also gives protection to employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status called for sexual discrimination too. The Court recorded that the Employment decisions must not revolve around a person’s homosexuality or transgender status. 

The Majority Judgement

Justice Neil McGill Gorsuch authored the Majority Judgement. The judgement is very logical in its explanation. It gave an example of two individuals, equally attracted to men. The only difference being, one is a man and the other, a woman. The employer fires the man for being attracted to a man but keeps the woman. In such a case, the employer treats the man with bias for “traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague“. The discrimination is nothing but based on sex which should not be “relevant to employment decisions“. 

Another example that the judgement quotes is that of a transgender who was identified as a male when born. But now he identifies himself as a female. Here, the employer doesn’t discharge another employee who was identified a female at birth and still does so. However, he discharges the former. In such a case, he is intentionally allowing the sex factor to play an “unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision“.

Sex here plays a “necessary and undisguisable role” in the employment decision. Title VII of the Act forbids exactly that. 

The Dissent by Three Judges

Justice Alito, Justice Thomas and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito said that the concept of discrimination based on sex is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’. He said that citizens know and want gays, lesbians and transgenders to be treated with “dignity, consideration and fairness“. But the Court’s authority was limited to “saying what the law is”. 

Justice Kavanaugh was of the view that the judgement delivered by the majority was a transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers. However, he did call the majority judgement an important victory for the millions of American gays and lesbians. He acknowledged their hardships while trying to survive amidst such prevalent bias. He urged them to take pride in the change that’s been brought about now. Nevertheless, he maintained his disagreement. He respectfully opined that it was the role of the Congress to amend Title VII and not of the Court.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -