Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 17–1618.  Argued October 8, 2019—Decided June 15, 2020* 

In each of these cases, an employer allegedly fired a long-time employee 
simply for being homosexual or transgender.  Clayton County, Geor-
gia, fired Gerald Bostock for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee 
shortly  after  he  began  participating  in  a  gay  recreational  softball 
league.  Altitude Express fired Donald Zarda days after he mentioned 
being gay.  And R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes fired Aimee Ste-
phens,  who  presented  as  a  male  when  she  was  hired,  after  she  in-
formed her employer that she planned to “live and work full-time as a 
woman.”  Each employee sued, alleging sex discrimination under Title 
VII  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  1964.    The  Eleventh  Circuit  held  that 
Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being 
gay and so Mr. Bostock’s suit could be dismissed as a matter of law.  
The  Second  and  Sixth  Circuits,  however,  allowed  the  claims  of  Mr. 
Zarda and Ms. Stephens, respectively, to proceed. 

Held: An  employer  who  fires  an  individual  merely  for  being  gay  or 

transgender violates Title VII.  Pp. 4–33. 

(a) Title VII makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse 
to  hire  or  to  discharge  any  individual,  or  otherwise  to  discriminate 
against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, re-
ligion,  sex,  or  national  origin.”    42  U. S. C.  §2000e–2(a)(1).    The 
straightforward application of Title VII’s terms interpreted in accord 

—————— 

* Together  with  No.  17–1623,  Altitude  Express,  Inc.,  et al.  v.  Zarda 
et al., as Co-Independent Executors of the Estate of Zarda, on certiorari 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and No. 18–
107, R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.