Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Title VII Ruling A Clear Victory for Equality

WASHINGTON – On news that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and related cases, ruling that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII,” CAC President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following statement:

Today’s ruling is a clear victory for equality. 

It is also a victory for reading the text of a statute like Title VII in light of the original meaning of its words, even when those meanings are unpopular with one or another political faction. 

As we argued in a brief the Constitutional Accountability Center and Professor Katie Eyer submitted on behalf of statutory interpretation and equality law scholars, when an employer fires a woman because she is attracted to women, for instance, but not a man who is attracted to women, that action is necessarily “because of … sex” even under the narrowest definition of “sex” that existed in 1964 when Title VII was enacted. In the same way, when an employer fires a transgender woman for identifying and presenting as a woman, that action is necessarily “because of … sex” because the employer would not have fired her for identifying and presenting as a woman if she had been assigned the female sex at birth.

The Court squarely recognized that reality today. As Justice Gorsuch wrote, “An employer who discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees necessarily and intentionally applies sex-based rules.” That is exactly right, and we are gratified the Court reached this historic conclusion.

#

Resources:

CAC brief in cases consolidated or linked with Bostock v. Clayton County: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/bostock-v-clayton-county-altitude-express-v-zarda-and-r-g-g-r-harris-funeral-homes-v-eeoc/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Williams v. Huner

In Williams v. Huner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is considering whether a Pennsylvania prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with rigid neck and wrist braces and effective pain medication violated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Womble v. Patel

In Womble v. Patel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether a North Carolina prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with a hearing-aid battery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Colorado to allow religious preschool providers to join its state-funded universal preschool program even though they refuse...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans