Skip to main content

Back to Bostock: The Dust is Settling


    In the five weeks since the US Supreme Court case of Bostock v Clayton County was decided, not much has been written about it due to Covid 19 and the social unrest caused by the death of George Floyd.

 So I'm not well-informed on other lawyers' opinions on this, though I've benefited from talking with interested feminists who've followed the case. These are just one radfem's takeaways from the Bostock decision.

 1. The main holding is clear: the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers LGB and T workers and job applicants.

2. The reasoning is this: adverse employment decisions are prohibited if the sex of the employee is necessarily a factor in the adverse decision. There's no distinguishing analysis between sexual orientation and trans status. LGB and T legal interests are assumed to be the same for purposes of civil rights law. When either sexual orientation or trans status is a reason for an adverse employment decision, the same reasoning kicks in, because biological sex is automatically a factor for either.

3. Religious and other similar persons and institutions, including "conscientious objectors" who may not be ministers or even directly connected to a church, are encouraged to seek exemptions from nondiscrimination laws in reliance on the First Amendment in future cases, and Bostock expressly does not decide on the religious issue.

4. Transgender people are covered under Title VII on the basis that they cannot be discriminated against because of their biological sex. The plaintiff in the Harris case was a man discriminated against because a similarly-situated woman employee would not have been fired for exhibiting the behavior and appearance he wished to exhibit on the job. Trans women are not women, they are necessarily men for this analysis to be coherent. The male petitioner Aimee Stephens can't be treated differently from the way a woman would have been treated in that position, or he, a man, is being discriminated against because of his male sex.

5. The Court makes no explicit holding regarding dress codes. However, following the Bostock test, dress codes for men and women, which necessarily consider biological sex, may not treat a man who dresses according to the women's dress code in any way differently from a woman who dresses according to the women's dress code. The fact that both sexes suffer equally from having a dress code doesn't change that. It follows that in future cases the holding will be that any man, trans or not, who chooses to follow the women's dress code may not be fired for doing so.

6. Title VII was enacted to protect individuals, not a class of women or a class of men in the employment arena. Class complaints will be discouraged or perhaps not permitted at all in future Title VII cases.

7. While the holding is limited to the facts of the particular cases, the case will control many other Title VII cases. It is very likely to control decisions in future Title IX (education, including women's sports) cases. It is very likely to result in an even narrower interpretation of the statutory BFOQ exceptions. It is likely to be influential or controlling in state courts considering civil rights cases. It will be influential in considering any civil rights bills brought in the Congress.

8. The Court is emphasizing textual analysis as a method of decision over a contextual analysis that considers legislative history and intent, public policy arguments, or the plain meaning of a term at the time a statute was enacted.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wow! What a Finish! The Gilead Court Guts US Women's Rights in a Neat Three-Play Touchdown in the Last Ten Seconds of the 2020 Term

Nobody ever said Team Gilead had bad coaching, and the team had brought in a new quarterback and tight end during the previous term. But Team Gilead surpassed all bets, rolling over Team Women in a surprise end-run in the last ten seconds before the season adjourned. A real play-by-play of the season-ender isn't available, because Team Gilead played it close to the chest and the commentary they put out about the plays (called "Opinions") is just a pile of bullshit. But we watched the game and noticed a few things: PLAY ONE: Bostock v Clayton County   Justice Roberts passed the ball to Justice Gorsuch and timeout was called for some judicial deliberation. Gorsuch huddled with Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. He said Roberts was willing to let him use his pet Scalian method, and that Team Women would give up five yards for a "win" of any kind. The other three hated the idea, but Gorsuch promised Alito his dissent could be as long and droning as he wanted, a

Chinks Where Women Can Hide in the Bostock Age to Come

This is a very early reaction to the question, What will be the implications for women as a class over the next ten or twenty years, of the US Supreme Court case holding in Bostock v. Clayton County (June 15, 2010)? Here is the holding of the Bostock case, in its simplest and most devastating form. The Court held:  "...it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. " The elevation of rights of LGB people to federal protection do not affect the rights of women to safety, privacy, and bodily sovereignty. But the elevation of transgender status to the protective sex category of Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and, by implication and the rule of controlling cases, to all similarly-structured federal protective statutes as well as state statutes) does negatively affect women's rights. The problem with placing both the rights of transgender biological males

Concerned Women for America Feels Sheer Dread at a Twitter Grandma, Lies about Nominating a New Justice, Projects Its Insecurities about all the Money Koch Gives It, and Rolls up its Sleeves for Battle with the Unhinged

Here is Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, in an article for Fox News dated September 19, 2020, one day after Justice Ginsburg's death ( https://www.foxnews.com/.../ruth-bader-ginsburg-death... ): "At first glance, they [Democrats] are making the demand that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell apply the rule the Senate used to put a hold on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Only they know that rule does not apply in this case. "That procedural rule stipulates that, when an opposing party to the president holds the Senate, no Supreme Court confirmation should be confirmed during a presidential election year. "The reasoning behind it is that the people have spoken both in selecting the president and in giving the Senate to the opposing party, so they should consider that and decide which way to go with the nomination in the election. "That is not the case now. America elected Donald J. Trump as president (largely on his pledge about t