Contact Information
- 15800 Progress, Mora, MN, 55051
- info@preessays.com
- +1-786-220-3368
Browse our Free Essay examples and check out our Writing tools to get your assignments done.
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.