Supreme Court Rules that Title VII Protects Gay Rights

Kristina Buchthal Alkass • June 29, 2020
The United States Supreme Court ruled that civil rights laws must protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, in a landmark 6-3 ruling that paves the way for gay rights protections for workers in all 50 states.

The Supreme Court ruling decides three cases, ultimately finding that the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people with its language barring sex discrimination. Justice Neal Gorsuch, nominated by President Donald Trump, wrote the opinion for the typically conservative court. 

The Supreme Court has issued several landmark opinions about gay rights in the last several years, including the Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court ruled in favor of gay marriage. The court’s opinions in those cases were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. This is the first ruling by the Court on a gay rights issue since Justice Kennedy retired.

“The answer is clear,” Gorsuch wrote. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Previously, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender plaintiffs have sued for violations of their rights under Title VII, claiming that discrimination based on sexuality is akin to sex discrimination. Federal appeals courts throughout the nation differed in their rulings on the topic. The Supreme Court’s decision now requires federal courts to apply the law to protect gay rights in every state.

The ruling focuses on three separate individuals who were each fired by separate employers, after being employed for many years. The employees said that they were fired shortly after their employers learned that they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. 

Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia. He was an exemplary employee. But when he became involved in a gay recreational softball team and was the subject of some disparaging comments in the Clayton County community, Bostock was terminated for “unbecoming” conduct. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Clayton County did not violate Bostock’s civil rights. 

Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express in New York. He was fired days after his employer learned he is gay. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Zarda’s employer violated his civil rights. 

Aimee Stephens was employed by R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Garden City, Michigan. After working for the company for six years, she informed her employer that she would no longer present herself as male, and rather present herself as female at work and home. She was terminated shortly thereafter, with her employer stating “this isn’t going to work out.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the funeral home violated Stephens’ civil rights. 

“Ours is a society of written laws,” Gorsuch wrote. “Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

The ruling is expected to have a wide-ranging impact in imparting more rights to gay, lesbian, and transgender employees. 

If you have any questions about this article or gay rights in general, contact the author, attorney Kristina Buchthal Alkass, at kalkass@lavellelaw.com or 847-705-7555.


More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

Saved or client $1 Million in Estate Tax
By Estate Administration July 30, 2025
Due to Lavelle’s extensive knowledge in estate and gift tax, we were able to generate a combined federal and Illinois estate tax savings of $1 million for the client.
Don’t record a conversation without knowing the law in Illinois!
By Nataly Kaiser July 29, 2025
Do you know it’s a felony in Illinois if you record a conversation without consent? The Illinois Eavesdropping Statute prohibits the secret recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties involved. Protect yourself – Get consent before you hit record! Nataly Kaiser explains.
Now through 10-1-25, Lavelle Law is offering a special discounted rate on powers of attorney for col
By Jackie R. Luthringshausen July 24, 2025
Summer Special! - Now through 10-1-25, Lavelle Law is offering a special discounted rate on powers of attorney for college-bound students and young adults. Don't send your child to college without POA docs in place! Contact Attorney Luthringshausen to start the process. jluthringshausen@lavellelaw.com or 847-705-7555
A summary of The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and its tax implications.
By Steven A. Migala July 22, 2025
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), enacted on July 4, 2025, as Pub. L. No. 119-21, permanently extends and modifies key provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) while introducing new tax benefits and limitations. The law affects individuals, seniors, children, businesses, and charitable organizations.
An in-depth discussion of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its tax implications.
By Steven A. Migala and guest Ed Brooks July 21, 2025
Lavelle Law Shareholder Steven Migala and DHJJ Financial Principal Ed Brooks join host Jim Mitchell for an in-depth look at the new U.S. tax legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and discuss how it will impact both businesses and individuals.
An in-depth discussion of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its tax implications.
By Steven A. Migala and guest Ed Brooks July 21, 2025
Lavelle Law Shareholder Steven Migala and DHJJ Financial Principal Ed Brooks join host Jim Mitchell for an in-depth look at the new U.S. tax legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and discuss how it will impact both businesses and individuals.
What is a fee-shifting provision?
By Sarah J. Reusché July 15, 2025
In the United States, the "American Rule" generally requires each party in a legal dispute to cover their own attorney's fees, regardless of the case's outcome. However, exceptions exist where a judge may order one party to pay the other's attorney’s fees in specific circumstances. Sarah Reusché explains.
The reconciliation process and the financial relationship between landlords and tenants.
By Theodore M. McGinn July 14, 2025
In commercial leases, particularly those involving retail or office spaces, tenants typically pay not only base rent but also a share of additional operating expenses. These include Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges, property taxes, and insurance premiums. The reconciliation of these expenses is a key process.
Delaware Supreme Court’s Analysis of Indemnification Notices in Merger and Escrow Agreements
By Steven A. Migala July 11, 2025
Attorneys drafting or reviewing indemnification clauses and notice provisions in a sale or acquisition governed by Delaware law should be aware of the recent Delaware Supreme Court decision in Thompson Street Capital Partners IV L.P. v. Sonova U.S. Hearing Instruments, LLC.
Update on Illinois Tax Changes
By Timothy M. Hughes July 10, 2025
Beginning July 1, Illinois residents will face a series of tax increases related to the Fiscal Year 2026 budget, which takes effect from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026. These increases are from the $55+B state budget that is supposed to generate $700+M of new taxes ranging from gasoline, short-term rentals, and more.
More Posts