It is a limited opinion which is good. The court does not address intimate spaces saying it is not raised in this case. They don't address religious group rights. (Religious employers opted out of this argument.) They don't address whether sex & gender identity are the same.
-
-
Show this thread
-
They say they are not addressing other statutes. There is another case involving Title IX (intimate spaces in educational institutions) that is coming up. They are hinting that this case does not control that one. That statute has different language.
Show this thread -
The court says it assumes, for this case, that sex is biological sex. However, they say that when one discriminates based on sexual orientation, one discriminates in part based on biological sex even if there is an additional type of discrimination.
Show this thread -
Title VII also states that not even PARTIAL reliance on sex is allowed unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). So here they say there was partial reliance on sex. The dissent rejects the view that the outcome is based solely on the text.
Show this thread -
And again, because the plaintiffs in the case involving a transgender person refused to rely on their religious claims, they have lost under this analysis. But the court says other religious groups are free to press the claims.
Show this thread -
I filed two briefs in this case. I asked the court to rely upon a decision, the Oncale case, to find that discrimination based on the presentation of Gender is banned under Title VII without overturning distinctions between biological sex and gender identity.
Show this thread -
The court took the option of relying on its reading of the text buttressed by Oncale and other cases.
Show this thread -
Advocates also argued that sex is a "stereotype" and that courts should rely on gender identity. The majority did not rely on stereotyping theory interestingly enough.
Show this thread -
I also felt the Zarda case was distinguishable because it involved allegations of sexual harassment. The court does not address this. I made arguments the parties did not make. It seems the court is holding the parties to their arguments.
Show this thread -
The court attempts to say that its textual approach is consistent with past approaches. I frankly disagree. I think it may be a new textual approach.
Show this thread -
The court conceded that words might have had a different meaning in an earlier time but they said the parties did not rely upon this argument. They also suggested that what an earlier generation intended by the words does not matter.That will get some folks riled up.
Show this thread -
But I am not unhappy about the outcome. I argued for the same outcome but on a very different logic. And I argued religious exemptions in one cae. They did not consider because the party having the potential exemption did not rely upon it.
Show this thread -
-
So some are asking what the larger implications of this case are. I'll talk about that and then come back to the case itself if I have time. M said it was adhering closely to the statutory language. In fact, many of these discrimination statutes have similar language.
Show this thread -
And remember, we are talking about national or "federal" statutes as we call them. There are state statutes too; they cover the territory within a state. But those states cannot reach outside of their territories. So the federal statutes are key for a national rule.
Show this thread -
Now, it is very common for courts to interpret statutes with similar language in the same way.
Show this thread -
One candidate for a similar outcome is the Fair Housing Act which prohibits discrimination in access to housing (mortgages, apartments) "because of sex." Expect that one to be interpreted to forbid discrimination against trans people and on sexual orientation. A good thing.
Show this thread -
Now there is a biology/gender id issue in the Fair Housing Act. It involves shelters and whether male bodied persons must be housed with females. That will be a more difficult issue. The court will have to confront the significance of biological in that context.
Show this thread -
The Obama Administration issued "guidance" that shelters had to house people by gender identity. Trump's folks just announced they are reversing that by rule, allowing shelters to decide. They already reversed the Obama rules governing the Bureau of Prisons.
Show this thread -
There are other such statutes. The one governing sports, Title IX, is an exception of sorts because its history has a wealth of information that sex separation IS allowed. It was originally designed to allow women more opportunities in sports when the male bodied dominated.
Show this thread -
That statute will be the hardest for those who want to merge sex and gender to overcome. Similarly, bathroom issues in the workplace are probably not addressed here. The court says it is focusing on hiring.
Show this thread -
These cases are statutory cases. But there are other cases that raise constitutional issues. That is a different kettle of fish/different arguments. There is a sex/gender case coming up before the Court soon, Gavin Grimm's case, that also raises constitutional questions.
Show this thread -
So this case will have broader implications for sure. No doubt, some judges will decide the case means they can dismiss biology even though the M said it is not doing that. But my guess is that the court is headed toward narrowing the biology exception--but keeping it.
Show this thread -
The Grimm case was argued about a week ago in the intermediate appellate court. Expect them to rule within a month. Then there will be a petition for certiorari. The Court will grant it. And then 90 days to get the record together. Then briefing. A decision June next year.
Show this thread -
A hidden issue in Grimm is whether he still has standing. He alleges he was denied access to a bathroom matching his gender identity while a high school student. Now he has graduated. Hmmmm .....
Show this thread -
In the meantime we are in the midst of a presidential election. November 3. Stay tuned.
Show this thread -
Someone asked whether Bostock will receive compensation. To understand the answer you must understand the claims.
Show this thread -
Several people have asked how this affects the Soule case involving whether trans athletes have a right to compete with biological females. (Yes, I said that term.)
Show this thread -
Soules is in a lower court. The case that might affect Soules is Grimm which should come up for decision in the term starting in October.
Show this thread -
The relevance of this case is two fold. First, the majority here directs the courts to carefully look at the language of the statute. (But some argue they did not do that here.) They claim to be doing that.
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.