Bostock v. Clayton County

Bostock (plaintiff) worked for 10 years as a child-welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia (defendant).

Bostock was dismissed shortly after he starting to play for a gay softball league.

Bostock sued for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

11th Circuit rules against Bostock because romantic orientation ("homosexuality") isn't listed in Title VII.

Does Title VII protect on the basis of gender traits (romantic orientation being same-gender affinity & identity with affirmation being described as trans)?

Bostock's employer did not explicitly inform he that he was being fired for being LGBT. The pretext used to dismiss him was that an internal audit of his welfare program revealed that he mis-managed program funds.

Yes. Title VII protects from labor discrimination based on gender traits (romantic orientation & affirmed identity).

Characteristics derived from gender makes but-for causation clear in these cases; that is, whenever a particular outcome wouldn't have happened but for the purported cause.

Samuel Alito dissented by stating the Congress has for many years failed to add orientation & affirmed identity to protected categories. The Equality Act has failed to pass.