HRMT413 Employment and Labor Relations, Week 3 Discussion

This week, we will discuss the Bostock decision and its impact on discrimination based on sex. Please answer all questions below.

1. Summarize the Bostock decision. Who were the parties? What was the dispute? How did the court rule? How has the court's ruling changed the legal landscape around discrimination based on sex?

2. With the ruling in Bostock in mind, is an employer legally permitted to force a transgendered employee to use the restroom that corresponds to their birth sex? Why or why not?

The Bostock decision was based on the Bostock v. Clayton County case that was contended before the Supreme Court of the US on October 8th, 2019. The case was pertinent to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Mallory, Vasquez & Meredith, 2020). The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the 11th Circuit in 6-3 ruling and held that an employer who dismisses a person for merely being transgender or gay infringes Title VII.

The parties of the Bostock case are Gerald Bostock and Clayton County in Georgia. Bostock was fired and he sued the county for discriminating against him based on the aspect of his sexual orientation. He argued that his dismissal was a desecration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The case had been dismissed by the federal district court and later appealed to the 11th Circuit, which affirmed the ruling of the district court (Valenti, 2021). In this case, the Court ruled by looking at the issue of whether discrimination against a staff member because of his or her sexual orientation makes up prohibited employment discrimination.

The Court's ruling has significantly changed the legal landscape around discrimination based on sex because the LGBTG+ staff members in various corporations are protected from employment decisions based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Bostock is applied in two main legal ways (Valenti, 2021). First LGBTG+ job applicants can bring suit under Title VII to present claims of disparate treatment for the failure of being hired. Secondly, the Supreme Court can interpret and apply the phrase "because of sex" in Title VII in numerous federal statutes to widen the overall reach.

With the ruling in Bostock in mind, an employer is not legally permitted to force a transgender employee to use the restroom that corresponds to their birth sex. This would be a form of discrimination based on gender identity. The employer should allow transgender employees to use the restroom based on the gender that they identify with.

References

Mallory, C., Vasquez, L. A., & Meredith, C. (2020). Legal protections for LGBT people after Bostock v. Clayton County.

Valenti, A. (2021). LGBT Employment Rights in an Evolving Legal Landscape: the Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 33(1), 3-23.