Final Research Paper (Case Study): Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

Student Name

 Institution

Course Name & Number

Instructor

Due Date

Final Research Paper (Case Study): Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

Case History

In 2003, Gerald Bostock, a gay gentleman, assumed his duties as a child services official at the Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Georgia. Bostock dispensed his duties diligently, receiving positive appraisal and various awards. In 2013, Gerald started getting involved with a gay softball league during his recreation and endorsed it at his workplace seeking volunteers (Franicevic & Ko, n.d.). According to the petition, shortly after that, a high-leveled official at the Clayton County court system ridiculed Bostock's identity, sexual persuasion, and involvement with the gay community during a staff assembly (Freedom for All Americans, n.d.). In the following weeks, Clayton County informed Gerald of the impending internal audit of his program's financial activities. In June 2013, county officials terminated Bostock's employment as his conduct did not align with Clayton County's employee value codes. Bostock responded by alleging that he was sacked not as a result of his productivity but sexual leaning. 

Shortly afterward, Gerald sued Clayton County, claiming that his dismissal breached Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. With Georgia then being on one of the states with little protection of LGBT persons against employment discrimination, the county dismissed Bostock's claims (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). Its lawyers argued that Title VII did not protect individuals, including Gerald, from intolerance at work regarding their sexual inclination. Subsequently, a federal court judge dismissed his case for lack of merit. Not giving up, Bostock appealed the verdict; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged the earlier pronouncement (Haynes and Boone LLP, 2020). It highlighted the limitations in Gerald's appeal and explained that it could not overrule the prior panel's resolution without higher court intervention. The jury justified its ruling from the 2017 case Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, where it determined that Title VII does not entail protection against employment discrimination against gay people. 

Bostock appealed the Eleventh Circuit ruling, where a panel of three judges supported the 2018 District Court ruling. Quoting two previous cases and decisions made by the Fifth Circuit in 1976 regarding Evans and Blum cases, the three-judge bench justified its affirmation (Franicevic & Ko, n.d.). In upholding the ruling, they explained that in Evans, the Court dismissed the appeal case against sex discrimination based on the precedent set by Price Waterhouse and Oncale. However, the Eleventh Circuit's determination opposed that made in Hively in which the panel determined that judgement at work based on sexual preference dishonored Title VII. In 2018, in Altitude Express, the Second Circuit issued a similar conclusion (Nelson Mullins & Scarborough LLP, 2020). All of this showed that the Second and Seventh Circuits had opposing interpretations of Title VII. Therefore, these cases, as well as the Sixth Circuit's ruling in Harris Funeral Homes, meant that Bostock’s fate lay in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented in the Court

Title VII’s Interpretation of “Sex”

According to Bostock, Title VII clause “because…. of sex” illegalizes employment sexual-orientation discrimination. Franisevic and Ko (n.d.) explained that Bostock told the Court that employers have the responsibility to ascertain the sexual preference before engaging their services. Gerald explained that any sexual-based discrimination relies on a reflection on gender, which the law forbids. In his appeal, Bostock also recognized that an employer should not discriminate against anyone associated with a person of the same gender. Gerald pointed out that when an organization discriminates against an individual for associating with a same-sex colleague, the entity is efficiently discerning against workers as a result of worker's sex (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). Bostock further contended that an employer breaches Title VII if they discriminate against an individual for refusing to agree with sexual stereotypes. Therefore, employers should not be bothered if a worker is not attracted to those of the opposite gender.

GET THE WHOLE PAPER!