Summary of the Case
The analysis of the recent Supreme Court’s ruling focuses on an October 8, 2019 Bostock v. Clayton County case regarding LGBTQ and workplace rights. The case questions the significance and fundamentals provided by the Federal Civil Rights laws protecting employees that identify as LGBTQ in the workplace from discrimination across the country. In a ruling of 6-3 judges, the court cited the words defined by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as the basis of the ruling. That is, “employers are held accountable to the fact that they may not refuse to hire employees on the basis of their race, sex, religion, or national origin” (Savage, 2020). The arguments of the court posit that any form of discrimination that is based on gender or sexual orientation can be identified as a discrimination based on sex. The court relies on the words and their interpretation rather than the intention of the lawmakers. This is based on the fact that, the lawmakers’ initial intention may not have primarily focused on the protection of gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) employees in the workplace, rather provide a safe environment free of discrimination and equal treatment for all (Patel & Feng, 2021).
Factors Leading to the Outcome
The court’s arguments are based on Title VII laws that makes it “unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, furthering discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2019). Also, an employer can potentially violate Title VII by intentionally or otherwise firing an employee based on sex.
Effect the ruling Had on Law, Precedent, and Social Policy
The case affirms the existing laws and their value on employee protection. The precedent following Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542, the case argued on the violation of Title VII by the refusal of the employer to hire women with young children (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2019). This asserts the profound important of social policies clearly providing clear mandates that account for authentic and transparent hiring processes. Therefore, guarantees safety and protection of all employees to access equal rights and opportunities.
Additional Ways the Case Could Be Overturned in the Future
The ruling can be overturned based on the prove of lack of violation of discrimination laws. Should the employees be found guilty providing a basis for their firing, any affiliation to LGBTQ, gender, race, or any other context does not matter.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. (2019, October). Supreme Court of the United States: Syllabus – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia – Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Retrieved April 26, 2021, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Patel, P. C., & Feng, C. (2021). LGBT Workplace Equality Policy and Customer Satisfaction: The Roles of Marketing Capability and Demand Instability. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40(1), 7-26.
Savage, D.G. (2020, June 24). Major rulings from Supreme Court in 2020 term on abortion, religion, and Trump taxes. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 26, 2021, from https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-24/supreme-court-2020-term-major-cases