Blog Post

Supreme Court Rules that Title VII Protects Gay Rights

Kristina Buchthal Alkass • June 29, 2020
The United States Supreme Court ruled that civil rights laws must protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, in a landmark 6-3 ruling that paves the way for gay rights protections for workers in all 50 states.

The Supreme Court ruling decides three cases, ultimately finding that the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people with its language barring sex discrimination. Justice Neal Gorsuch, nominated by President Donald Trump, wrote the opinion for the typically conservative court. 

The Supreme Court has issued several landmark opinions about gay rights in the last several years, including the Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court ruled in favor of gay marriage. The court’s opinions in those cases were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. This is the first ruling by the Court on a gay rights issue since Justice Kennedy retired.

“The answer is clear,” Gorsuch wrote. “An 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.”

Previously, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender plaintiffs have sued for violations of their rights under Title VII, claiming that discrimination based on sexuality is akin to sex discrimination. Federal appeals courts throughout the nation differed in their rulings on the topic. The Supreme Court’s decision now requires federal courts to apply the law to protect gay rights in every state.

The ruling focuses on three separate individuals who were each fired by separate employers, after being employed for many years. The employees said that they were fired shortly after their employers learned that they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. 

Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia. He was an exemplary employee. But when he became involved in a gay recreational softball team and was the subject of some disparaging comments in the Clayton County community, Bostock was terminated for “unbecoming” conduct. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Clayton County did not violate Bostock’s civil rights. 

Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express in New York. He was fired days after his employer learned he is gay. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Zarda’s employer violated his civil rights. 

Aimee Stephens was employed by R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Garden City, Michigan. After working for the company for six years, she informed her employer that she would no longer present herself as male, and rather present herself as female at work and home. She was terminated shortly thereafter, with her employer stating “this isn’t going to work out.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the funeral home violated Stephens’ civil rights. 

“Ours is a society of written laws,” Gorsuch wrote. “Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

The ruling is expected to have a wide-ranging impact in imparting more rights to gay, lesbian, and transgender employees. 

If you have any questions about this article or gay rights in general, contact the author, attorney Kristina Buchthal Alkass, at kalkass@lavellelaw.com or 847-705-7555.


More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

LATEST UPDATE on the Corporate Transparency Act and New Deadline for Filing BOIR
By Frank J. Portera February 20, 2025
This article will serve as another update to the ongoing Corporate Transparency Act developments. As of February 17, 2025, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas lifted the injunction it had ordered on January 7, 2025, in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 6:24-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.), allowing the federal government to once again enforce the Corporate Transparency Act and its Beneficial Ownership Information Report requirements.
A Step-by-Step Guide to Bringing a Lawsuit in Illinois
By Sarah J. Reusché February 14, 2025
This article is the second in our Litigation 101 series. It focuses on the flip side: how to sue someone else. Suing someone is a serious decision that requires careful thought and preparation. Before pursuing legal action, it’s crucial to reflect on the issue and understand the steps involved in bringing a lawsuit. This article outlines the basics to help you approach the process with confidence and make informed decisions.
Updates Regarding the Corporate Transparency Act Hold: Key Implications for Businesses
By Frank J. Portera February 13, 2025
On December 11, 2024, we published an article titled “Corporate Transparency Act on Hold: Key Implications for Businesses,” which addressed the nationwide injunction impacting the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act and its Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting rule. Since then, there have been a few significant legal developments that businesses should monitor closely. While the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is currently prohibited from enforcing BOIR requirements, ongoing litigation, and the related appeals may alter this status. Below, we provide a timeline of key events and insights into what business owners should anticipate moving forward.
IRS Special Payments Sent to 1 Million Taxpayers Who Did Not Claim 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit
By Timothy M. Hughes February 10, 2025
The Internal Revenue Service is issuing automatic payments to eligible people who did not claim a Recovery Rebate Credit on their 2021 tax returns. The payments are in follow up to an IRS announcement last month of the intent to take this special step. The IRS took this step after reviewing internal data showing many eligible taxpayers who filed a return but did not claim the credit. The Recovery Rebate Credit is a refundable credit for individuals who did not receive one or more Economic Impact Payments (“EIP”), also known as stimulus payments.
SCOTUS Resolves Circuit Split on FLSA Exemption Standard
By Steven A. Migala February 5, 2025
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, with exemptions for employees in bona fide executive, administrative, professional, computer or outside sales roles. 29 U.S.C. § 213. Employees classified as "outside sales" must primarily engage in making sales or obtaining contracts for services or the use of facilities, and they must conduct their work primarily away from their employer’s place of business. 29 C.F.R. § 541.500.
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
By Sarah J. Reusché January 23, 2025
Amendments to BIPA SB 2929 became effective on August 2, 2024. Codified as 740 ILCS 14/10 and 14/20, this Act introduced two pivotal changes to BIPA that dealers should be aware of: • Limiting Per-Scan Damages: The amendments clarify that a single violation under BIPA accrues per type of violation, rather than per scan. This significantly reduces the financial exposure for dealerships. • Electronic Consent: The amendments formalize electronic signatures as a valid means of securing biometric consent, streamlining compliance processes for businesses.
IRS National Taxpayer Advocate Releases Annual Report to Congress. And in an Unrelated Matter DOJ Ta
By Timothy M. Hughes January 10, 2025
The National Taxpayer Advocate recently released her annual report to Congress. A few highlights from the report are summarized in this article.
Nearly 300 New Illinois Laws are going into effect in 2025.
By Lavelle Law January 8, 2025
Nearly 300 New Illinois Laws are going into effect in 2025. Listed below are some that may have a significant impact on you or your business.
Happy New Year and Cheers to New Adventures in 2025!
By Lavelle Law December 31, 2024
As we say farewell to 2024, we’re excited to look back on the unforgettable moments from our Koozie Challenge! From the frozen wonders of Antarctica to the excitement of the Paris Olympics, and countless incredible destinations in between, the Lavelle Law koozie truly went the distance this year! A big thank you to our clients, staff, family, and friends who took part in the fun. Here’s to even more adventures in 2025! Happy New Year from Lavelle Law!
Lavelle Law concludes the 2024 annual food drive.
By Lavelle Law December 30, 2024
Schaumburg-based Lavelle Law wrapped its annual food drive benefiting the Schaumburg Township Food Pantry. During the month of October, Lavelle Law set up collection boxes around Schaumburg and the surrounding area, where residents and workers could drop off nonperishable food items, paper goods, personal care items, baby food and diapers. Participants could also make cash donations online.
More Posts
Share by: