User:Dudebob5420/LGBT employment discrimination in the United States

Impact of Interpretation on Rulings

Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation is when athe Court determines the meaning of a statute, using a variety of methods, to make a ruling in a case.

Before Bostock v. Clayton County, there were numerous court cases that discussed the meaning of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two of the more important cases involving statutory interpretation were Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) and Oncale v. Sundowner (1998).

In Price Waterhouse, the plaintiff, Ann Hopkins, sued her employer when her proposal for partnership was dismissed and claimed it was because of her being a woman. (Kemp, n.d.) The Supreme Court noted that Hopkins’ failure to meet gender norms was taken into account by Price Waterhouse when making their employment decision.(Carter, 2020, p. 65) The Court stated in their decision that Title VII is violated when sex-based considerations and/or gender is used to make decisions regarding employment. (Price Waterhouse, 1989) By using statutory interpretation in the majority opinion, the Court in Price Waterhouse expanded the interpretation of Title VII to “establish liability if a plaintiff proved sex was a “motivating” or “substantial” factor in a decision based on a mix of legitimate and illegitimate factors”. (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 242, 250 (1989) (plurality opinion); id. at 259–61 (White, J., concurring); id. at 276, 278 (O’Connor, J., concurring))

In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., Joseph Oncale, an employee on an oil platform crew for Sundowner Offshore Services claimed he was sexually harassed by other employees and received no support for management. (Law...Oncale, n.d.) Oncale proceeded to file a complaint against his employer claiming his rights under Title VII were violated by the sexual harassment that had taken place at work. (Oncale Oyez, n.d.) The Court ruled unanimously that all discrimination based on sex was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act regardless of the victim’s gender. (Oncale 1998) The statutory interpretation by the Court allowed for a precedent to be set for deciding the outcome in same-sex harassment cases. (Law...Oncale, n.d.) By establishing this precedent, the Court made a statement for same-sex harassment cases that sets up the outcomes of numerous other cases centered on the question of LGBTQ protection under Title VII.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Gerald Bostock, an employee of Clayton County, Georgia, expressed interest in participating in gay recreational softball league in 2013. (Bostock Oyez) Shortly after, he was ridiculed by colleagues for his choices, including those related to his sexual orientation. (Bostock Oyez) After being abruptly fired for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” Bostock filed a claim with the EEOC because he believed his firing was discriminatory. (Cheng, 2020) Bostock lays out his argument using the plain-text approach of statutory interpretation that the Court agrees with and rules in his favor. (Carter, 2020, p. 66) The argument consisted of analyzing the broad meaning of “because of sex” and looking at the dictionary definition of “homosexual.” (Carter, 2020, p. 66) Because of this statutory groundwork, Bostock argues that discriminating against an employee for their sexual orientation “requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex,” and thus, is able to convince the Court to rule tht sexual orientation discrimination violates the protections laid out in Title VII. (Bostock Justice, n.d.)

Constitutional Interpretation

Constitutional Interpretation is when athe Court determines the constitutionality of a bill, act, statute, law, etc. that is brought before the Court.

In 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 2 which prohibited recognizing homoesexuals or bisexual individuals as a protected class. (Romer Oyez) After working its way through the judicial system, the Supreme Court made a decision in 1996 that ruled the Colorado amendment was unconstitutional. (Romer, 1996) The Supreme Court used the moral reasoning model of constitutional interpretation to recognize the impact this amendment would have on a specific group of people. (Romer, 1996) By targeting a specific group of people with no clear purpose, the Supreme Court used their constitutional interpretation to rule it unconstitutional. (Romer, 1996)

After entering the home of John Lawrence, Houston police discovered Lawrence performing sexual acts with another man and arrested them both for breaking a Texas law. (Lawrence, 2003) In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Texas law, which prohibited engaging with a member of your sex in a sexual act, made its way to the Supreme Court where they struck down the law because of its violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Lawrence, 2005) Through the moral reasoning approach, the Court expanded on the meaning of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment to include those of same-sex individuals and thus protect them under that amendment. (Lawrence, 2003)

In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court’s decision established the groundwork needed for the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. A couple married legally under Canadian law, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, moved to New York where their marriage was recognized but when filing taxes for the federal government, the United States did not recognize their marriage. (United States Oyez, n.d.) Windsor sued the federal government declaring that the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. (United States Oyez, n.d.) After lots of input from other government agencies and branches, the Supreme Court reached a decision in 2013 confirming that DOMA creates a “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” against same-sex couples which violates their protections under the Fifth Amendment. (United States, 2013) By using moral reasoning, the Court extended the protections of the Constitution to include the LGBTQ community and set a precedent, yet again, for future cases.

The landmark LGBTQ rights case came in 2015 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment protections and liberties to same-sex couples. (Obergefell Oyez) The majority held the prohibition against same-sex marriage from multiple states as unconstitutional and reflected the moral reasoning approach in their ruling. (Obergefell, 2015) Further, the Court extended their moral reasoning argument by claiming that there was no legal argument for refusing same-sex couples the right to marry in any state. (Obergefell, 2015).