Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

16 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

labels.  If the employer’s objection to the male employee is 
characterized as attraction to men, it seems that he is just
like the woman in all respects except sex and that the em-
ployer’s disparate treatment must be based on that one dif-
ference.  On the other hand, if the employer’s objection is 
sexual orientation or homosexuality, the two employees dif-
fer in two respects, and it cannot be inferred that the dis-
parate treatment was due even in part to sex.

The Court insists that its label is the right one, and that
presumably is why it makes such a point of arguing that an
employer cannot escape liability under Title VII by giving
sex discrimination some other name.  See  ante, at 14, 17. 
That  is  certainly  true,  but  so  is  the  opposite.  Something
that is not sex discrimination cannot be converted into sex 
discrimination by slapping on that label.  So the Court can-
not prove its point simply by labeling the employer’s objec-
tion  as  “attract[ion]  to  men.”  Ante,  at  9–10.  Rather,  the 
Court needs to show that its label is the correct one. 

And a labeling standoff would not help the Court because
that  would  mean  that  the  bare  text  of  Title  VII  does  not 
unambiguously show that its interpretation is right.  The 
Court would have no justification for its stubborn refusal to 
look any further. 

As it turns out, however, there is no standoff.  It can eas-
ily  be  shown  that  the  employer’s  real  objection  is  not  “at-
tract[ion] to men” but homosexual orientation.

In an effort to prove its point, the Court carefully includes
in its example just two employees, a homosexual man and 
a heterosexual woman, but suppose we add two more indi-
viduals, a woman who is attracted to women and a man who 
is attracted to women.  (A large employer will likely have
applicants and employees who fall into all four categories,
and a small employer can potentially have all four as well.) 
We now have the four exemplars listed below, with the dis-
charged employees crossed out: