About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

1 1 (October 11, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbbjg0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 









   Congressional                                                        _______
           aResearch Service
   ~hformrng the Iegislative debate since 1914





Supreme Court Considers Sex Discrimination

Claims by Gay and Transgender Workers



October 11, 2019
On October 8, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v.
Clayton County, Georgia, and R. G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. (Harris Homes) v. EEOC, a trio
of cases in which the Court is considering for the first time whether the prohibition of employment
discrimination because of ... sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) encompasses
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
This Sidebar provides an overview of Altitude Express, Bostock, and Harris Homes for Congress. The
Sidebar first outlines select Supreme Court precedent interpreting Title VII's prohibition on sex-based
discrimination, then summarizes the facts and arguments in the current cases. The Sidebar concludes by
discussing the potential implications of the cases, including key considerations for Congress.

Title VII and Discrimination Because of Sex
Title VII provides in relevant part that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or
refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with
respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's
... sex[.] The meaning of that statutory language and its application to sexual orientation and
transgender status is not entirely clear. Title VII does not explicitly address sexual orientation or
transgender status. Moreover, the text of the statute does not include a general definition of what
discrimination because of sex entails. In addition, there is limited legislative history related to the
inclusion of sex as a protected class under Title VII. As a consequence, interpretation of the phrase
because of sex has largely fallen to the courts.
The Supreme Court has observed that Title VII's ban on sex-based discrimination evinces a
congressional intent to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in
employment. Thus, the Court has interpreted Title VII to bar the use of an individual's sex as a
qualification for employment, but has also recognized other forms of prohibited sex-based discrimination.
For instance, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a plurality of the Court construed Title VII to prohibit
employment decisions grounded on sex-based stereotypes about how men or women should behave. The
Supreme Court has also held that Title VII prohibits sexual harassment, including when the harasser and
the victim are of the same sex. Thus, in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., Justice Scalia's
                                                                Congressional Research Service
                                                                https://crsreports.congress.gov
                                                                                    LSB10352

CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most