# Bostock v. Clayton County *United States Supreme Court decision (2020) holding that Title VII's bar on sex discrimination covers sexual orientation and gender identity* *Bostock v. Clayton County*, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), 140 S. Ct. 1731, is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It holds that Title VII's bar on discrimination "because of sex" reaches sexual orientation and gender identity.[^1][^2] The Court decided the case on June 15, 2020, by a 6–3 vote. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.[^1][^3] The case, No. 17-1618, was argued on October 8, 2019. The Court heard *Altitude Express v. Zarda* and *EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes* the same day.[^4][^5] The Minnesota Time Table describes the cases as arising from a three-way circuit split on whether Title VII covers sexual orientation and gender identity.[^6] In the Minnesota record, the decision is cited as the federal reading of Title VII's "because of sex" that the United States now presses against [[Minnesota]]'s state enforcement apparatus. The record treats that reading as underlying the sex and gender strand of the federal actions.[^7] The same source dates the decision twenty-one days after George Floyd was killed in [[Minneapolis]] on May 25, 2020.[^7] ## Holding and reasoning The majority opinion construed Title VII's phrase "because of sex" to reach discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.[^8] The opinion states that "changing the employee's sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer."[^1] The Minnesota Time Table summarizes the reasoning in these terms: an employer who discriminates against a man for being attracted to men must consider his sex, so the discrimination is "because of sex."[^9] On June 22, 2021, the Department of Education published a Notice of Interpretation at 86 Fed. Reg. 32637. The notice is titled *Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 With Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County*. It extended the decision's rationale to [[Title IX]].[^10] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who - Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.[^3] The Time Table also records his questions at the October 8, 2019 argument.[^6] ### What - The decision was 6–3. It held that Title VII's bar on discrimination "because of sex" covers sexual orientation and gender identity.[^1][^3] - The Time Table describes the reasoning as textualism, "that statutory plain text controls over legislative intent."[^11] - A claim:link row in the record describes the decision as the Title VII sex-discrimination expansion that the 1993 MHRA amendment preceded by twenty-seven years.[^12] ### When - Oral argument: October 8, 2019.[^4] - Decision: June 15, 2020, twenty-one days after May 25, 2020.[^1][^7] - The *How Minnesota Got Here* master notes that May 25 was also a date in 1967. On that day Governor LeVander approved Laws 1967 ch. 896, which created the [[Metropolitan Council (Minnesota)]], and ch. 897, which created the Department of Human Rights. The master marks the shared calendar date as coincidence, not causation. It cites *Bostock* there to anchor the 2020 date only.[^7] - Department of Education Notice of Interpretation: June 22, 2021.[^10] ### Where - The case was argued in Washington, D.C.[^4] ### Why - The Time Table states that the decision provides the doctrinal foundation for challenging the race- and sex-classification requirements of Minn. Stat. §43A.191 under Title VII.[^11] Under subd. 3(c), the statute requires a documented written justification before a "non-underrepresented" candidate is appointed.[^13] The record does not establish why federal authorities chose that route. ### How many - The Court heard three cases on October 8, 2019.[^4][^6] ## Active matters The Time Table links *Bostock* to [[United States v. Minnesota]] (No. 0:26-cv-00273).[^9] It states that the Department of Justice could not bring that action on Title VII textualist grounds without the decision.[^9][^11] The record does not establish the action's filing date, any ruling in it, or its current status. ## Notes [^1]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Bostock v. Clayton County*, 590 U.S. 644 (June 15, 2020) — slip opinion. It establishes the holding, the decision date, and the passage "changing the employee's sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf [^2]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Bostock v. Clayton County*, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) — parallel reporter citation. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/17-1618/ [^3]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Bostock v. Clayton County*, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) — decided 6–3, with Gorsuch, J., writing for the majority. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/644/ [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Oral Argument Transcript, No. 17-1618* (October 8, 2019) — establishes the argument date and place. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-1618_4gcj.pdf [^5]: Oyez, *Bostock v. Clayton County*, No. 17-1618 (October Term 2019) — case record and docket number. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618 [^6]: Minnesota Time Table, row TL-0875 (October 8, 2019) — records the argument of the three cases, the three-way circuit split, and Gorsuch's questions. Row source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-1618_4gcj.pdf [^7]: *How Minnesota Got Here* (merged master, footnoted), "LeVander's day" passage and n. 45. These record the May 25, 1967 approval of Laws 1967 chs. 896–897 and the May 25, 2020 killing of George Floyd, twenty-one days before the June 15, 2020 decision. They mark the calendar pairing as coincidence, not causation, and describe the decision as the "because of sex" reading underlying the sex and gender strand of the federal actions. [^8]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Bostock v. Clayton County*, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) — opinion text. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_5ifl.pdf [^9]: Minnesota Time Table, row TL-0888 (June 15, 2020) — summarizes the majority's reasoning. It links the decision to *United States v. Minnesota* (0:26-cv-00273). Row source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/ [^10]: Department of Education, *Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 With Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County*, 86 Fed. Reg. 32637 (June 22, 2021) — Notice of Interpretation extending the rationale to Title IX. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/22/2021-13058/enforcement-of-title-ix-of-the-education-amendments-of-1972-with-respect-to-discrimination-based-on [^11]: Minnesota Time Table, row TL-0901 (June 15, 2020) — characterizes the decision's textualism. It states that the decision provides the doctrinal foundation for a Title VII challenge to §43A.191 and for *United States v. Minnesota*. Row source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/ [^12]: Minnesota record, claim:link row 30 (Theory 1) — describes the decision as the Title VII expansion preceded by the 1993 MHRA amendment. Linked source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/644/ [^13]: Office of the Revisor of Statutes, *Minn. Stat. §43A.191* — subd. 3(c) requires a documented written justification before appointment of a "non-underrepresented" candidate. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/43A.191