In addition to facilities access, compensation discrimination is prohibited under Title VII. 8 In other words, while Bostock does not resolve whether the existence of sex-segregated bathrooms or locker rooms in an office violates Title VII’s sex discrimination prohibitions, prohibiting a transgender woman from using the women’s restroom violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination with respect to the privileges of employment.

The question of whether equal access to facilities is protected under Title VII has been resolved in other contexts and should apply the same for transgender employees. The statute makes it “unlawful” for employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” 6 And although the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision responds to a concern from the employers that the decision will prohibit sex-segregated spaces-stating that “we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind” 7-this does not mean that the court’s decision does not extend to access to existing sex-segregated spaces for transgender workers. Title VII’s protections both apply to and extend beyond hiring and firing. 4 For LGBTQ people of color, workplace discrimination is an even more common experience, with nearly 1 in 3 reporting that they have experienced discrimination when applying for a job because of their LGBTQ identity. A 2014 report from the Movement Advancement Project and the Center for American Progress estimated that between 8 and 17 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers are denied employment or unfairly fired on the basis of their sexual orientation this number rose to 13 to 47 percent for transgender workers. Impacts on employmentĭiscrimination against LGBTQ workers is pervasive and has negative impacts on their lives. These impacts are highlighted in the sections below. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision could have wide-ranging effects for LGBTQ people in not just employment but many other areas as well. The broad impacts of the Supreme Court’s decision Finally, although the Supreme Court’s decision will affect many other laws and expand equality for LGBTQ people, this brief discusses why more still needs to be done-and specifically, why there is still an urgent need for Congress to pass the Equality Act. It also describes how attacks could weaken civil rights protections for LGBTQ people. This issue brief discusses the significance of the Supreme Court’s June 15 decision for LGBTQ people in terms of employment, education, health care and coverage, and housing, as well as under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Although Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent in Bostock is dripping with transphobia and homophobia, it correctly notes that the court’s broad holding could advance LGBTQ equality under civil rights statutes that prohibit sex discrimination, such as Title IX, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Fair Housing Act, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This framing has much larger implications and provides a critical tool to address the widespread discrimination that LGBTQ people face not just in employment but in other key areas of life as well. Clayton County-in which it held that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” 1 Despite the holding’s language and Bostock’s focus on firing under Title VII, the potential impact of the decision is much broader: The Supreme Court’s opinion states that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” 2

The Supreme Court combined these cases and issued a single opinion- Bostock v. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, where a transgender woman was fired because of her gender identity. Clayton County, Georgia, in which gay men were fired because of their sexual orientation, and R.G. This decision resulted from three cases: Altitude Express Inc. Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision affirming that the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

14th amendment protection