Introduction
Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a violation of equal rights and equal opportunities for people related to their gender identity or sexual orientation that is not rationally grounded. Meanwhile, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation can occur in the workplace (Sulliva et al., 2021). This leads to the creation of unequal working conditions or the dismissal of employees. Legal action, which can restore rights, provides protection from discrimination. Thus, it is essential to analyze the Bostock v. Clayton County case, evaluate the court decisions, and provide alternative ways to solve the problem.
Facts
Bostock v. Clayton County was a case heard by the Supreme Court and became one of the most important in ensuring the rights of gay people. Accordingly, in 2018, a gay person filed a lawsuit and claimed that the employer, Clayton County Board of Commissioners, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Valenti, 2021). The significant facts of the case were that Gerald Bostock worked as a child protection social worker and was responsible for special advocates appointed by the court. The results of professional competency tests indicated that the employee had a high level of competence. Meanwhile, since 2013, Gerald Bostock has been a member of a gay softball league, where he had acquaintances with specialists and told them about the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) and indicated the possibility of volunteering under the program (Valenti, 2021).
The plaintiff claims that his orientation and his demonstration of it at the workplace were sharply criticized, and later, at CASA, the management fired him because of his sexual orientation. The important point is that the official reason for the dismissal was behavior that did not conform to the requirements for a district employee (Valenti, 2021). Therefore, given the fact that the employee’s performance evaluation was positive, Bostock was fired because he participated in a gay softball league.
Decisions
It is significant to highlight that Bostock disagreed with the legal basis for the dismissal and considered it a form of discrimination. Accordingly, he filed a lawsuit in the district court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Berman & Krishnamurthi, 2021). During the case, the magistrate judge ruled that a claim based on sexual orientation could not be brought under Title VII because Title VII does not protect the plaintiff or anyone else from discrimination in relation to their sexual orientation.
This view was endorsed by the district court, although Bostock had requested that Title VII be amended to protect employees from all forms of discrimination in the workplace (Berman & Krishnamurthi, 2021). Moreover, the court relied on precedents that also involved the dismissal of members of the LGBT community. This indicates a systematic violation of the rights of employees who have a non-traditional orientation and the lack of mechanisms to restore and protect their rights.
The district court also provided an additional explanation for dismissing Boston’s claim. The decision stated that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to constitute discrimination (Berman & Krishnamurthi, 2021). Bostock appealed, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision. The three-judge, per curiam ruling, stated that precedents supported the district court’s decision and that the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on transgender rights under Title VII (Berman & Krishnamurthi, 2021).
Later, Bostock filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court to challenge the decisions of the previous instances and to defend the inclusion of sexual orientation discrimination in Title VII. The Supreme Court’s decision supported all of the applicant’s claims. The ruling stated that sexual orientation and gender identity are covered by Title VII (Berman & Krishnamurthi, 2021). It is worth noting that the ruling was based on the majority opinion of the justices that sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination. Accordingly, Title VII should define sex discrimination as a sexual orientation as a derivative of gender.
Personal Opinion
Gerald Bostock was a successful social worker, as evidenced by his performance reports. In addition, the performance management cycle provides guidelines for a professional assessment of workers (Performance Management, n.d.). Thus, to evaluate employees’ compliance with the requirements, monitoring their productivity and ability to solve problems is necessary.
The facts of the case show that Gerald Bostock was a high performer, and I find that it is not correct to dismiss him for conduct unbecoming of a civil servant (Berman & Krishnamurthi, 2021). Accordingly, I find that Bostock was fired because of his sexual orientation and that he was not able to protect himself under Title VII. Therefore, I dissent from the decisions of the district and court of appeals, but I affirm the Supreme Court’s ruling and proposed interpretation of Title VII.
Meanwhile, I think that even the Bible does not condemn different sexual orientations. Moreover, the Bible does not state that it is necessary to discriminate against people on this basis but generally condemns any discriminatory actions. At the same time, one of the basic principles of the Bible is love for one’s neighbor and respect for all people (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Accordingly, if a person does not commit any harm, does not harm others, and fulfills their social duty, all people should live in peace. Therefore, discrimination against a person because of sexual orientation is contrary to the basic biblical principle.
Moreover, a growing number of people who are close to Christianity and the church support same-sex marriage and do not consider different sexual orientations to be a problem or a reason for discrimination. For instance, Pope Francis explains that if a person is homosexual and searches for God and has goodwill, then there is no need to condemn them. Francis said that society should fully accept gays (Mara et al., 2021). Accordingly, I think that stereotypical views of people with sexual orientation have been transformed in modern society. Even church representatives have started to emphasize the importance of non-discriminatory attitudes based on sexual orientation.
Hence, I suggest that people tolerate each other in different cultural environments, especially in the workplace. Furthermore, if employees’ professional competencies are high, there is no need to consider other factors to assess them. I support the Supreme Court’s decision to include sexual orientation discrimination within the meaning of Title VII (Sullivan et al., 2021). Furthermore, Gerald Bostock is entitled to individualized restoration of his rights and moral satisfaction.
Solutions
It is crucial to note that the court could have considered alternatives in addition to the prescribed solution. For example, the Supreme Court broadened the interpretation of Title VII, but could have initiated broader legislative initiatives. Thus, creating a complete and comprehensive law would prohibit discriminatory actions based on gender and sexual orientation (Lim et al., 2019).
Moreover, issuing a landmark decision in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County is a way to set a precedent. Still, establishing a single and comprehensive law is vital in preventing dismissals that do not comply with the law. Research has been conducted in states with clear employment regulations, and it shows that precise legal rules help avoid workplace discrimination against LGBTQ+ people (Nigro et al., 2014).
Accordingly, creating a nationwide regulation is a way to solve this situation. However, not only the court but also state authorities should be involved in addressing discrimination related to sexual orientation. Therefore, state authorities should encourage the development and adoption of education and training programs that focus on inclusive features of people and teach them how to work in a diverse environment.
Furthermore, employees of public organizations and private companies should receive periodic training on effective communication and fostering tolerant relationships in the workplace (Sifunda-Evelia, 2017). Research on workplace diversity has shown that training helps to reduce prejudice and discrimination, especially against the LGB community (Mara et al., 2021). Therefore, such training programs are an alternative solution to help establish a favorable climate in the team and avoid any manifestations of discrimination.
Furthermore, it is important to ensure that company leadership promotes inter-ethnic relations at the state level rather than perpetuating discriminatory precedents. Corporate social responsibility should be promoted as an alternative solution. Therefore, all enterprises, regardless of ownership, should have a developed policy of tolerance and anti-discrimination, regardless of the reasons for its manifestation (Sifunda-Evelia, 2017).
This policy should state that LGBTQ+ people are no different from other employees and should receive equal rights and benefits. For example, the study showed that access to a complaint and suggestion mechanism for members of LGB communities improved their protection against discrimination (Schoen & Rost, 2021). As a result, implementing and enforcing such a policy will create a level playing field for all workers.
Conclusion
The case of Bostock v. Clayton County is a landmark case in labor rights protection for LGBTQ people. The basic facts of the case boil down to the fact that Gerald Bostock was fired for openly demonstrating his non-traditional orientation. In addition, he could not protect his rights under Title VII, as sex-based discrimination was not clearly stated.
Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed to the district and appellate courts, which dismissed his claim. Boston’s petition was granted in the Supreme Court, and a broader interpretation of Title VII was given. However, I affirm the Supreme Court’s decision that Bostock’s termination was unlawful.
Moreover, I believe that there are alternative methods of addressing the problem of discrimination against non-traditional orientations in the workplace. These include creating a comprehensive law, introducing employee training programs, and creating a corporate social responsibility policy. These initiatives reduce discrimination against dismissal due to the natural expression of sexual orientation.
References
Berman, M. N., & Krishnamurthi, G. (2021). Bostock was bogus: Textualism, pluralism, and Title VII. Notre Dame Law Review, 97(1), 67-127.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Performance management: PADM704: Human resources and the legal and regulatory context of public administration. (n.d.). Word Document.
Lim, F., Jones, P. A., & Paguirigan, M. (2019). A guide to fostering an LGBTQ-inclusive workplace. Nursing Management, 50(6), 46-53. Web.
Mara, L. C., Ginieis, M., & Brunet-Icart, I. (2021). Strategies for coping with LGBT discrimination at work: A systematic literature review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18, 339-354. Web.
Nigro, L. G., Nigro, F. A., & Kellough, J. E. (2014). The new public personnel administration (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Schoen, C., & Rost, K. (2021). What really works?! Evaluating the effectiveness of practices to increase the managerial diversity of women and minorities. European Management Journal, 39(1), 95-108. Web.
Sifunda-Evelia, M. (2017). Human resource management practices: A biblical perspective. Partridge.
Sullivan, C. A., Bornstein, S., & Zimmer, M. J. (2021). Cases and materials on employment discrimination. Aspen Publishing.
Valenti, A. (2021). LGBT employment rights in an evolving legal landscape: The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 33(1), 3-23. Web.