Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 89

52 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

New York City, have ordinances making the failure to use 
an  individual’s  preferred  pronoun  a  punishable  offense,59 
and some colleges have similar rules.60  After today’s deci-
sion, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their pre-
ferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting 
sex discrimination.  See Prescott v. Rady Children’s Hospi-
tal San Diego, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1098–1100 (SD Cal.
2017) (hospital staff ’s refusal to use preferred pronoun vio-
lates ACA).61 

The Court’s decision may also pressure employers to sup-
press any statements by employees expressing disapproval 
of  same-sex  relationships  and  sex  reassignment  proce-
dures.  Employers  are  already  imposing  such  restrictions
voluntarily, and after today’s decisions employers will fear 
—————— 
ve, ver, vis; xe, xem, xyr, xyrs; ze/zie, hir, hirs). 

59 See 47 N. Y. C. R. R. §2–06(a) (2020) (stating that a “deliberate re-
fusal to use an individual’s self-identified name, pronoun and gendered 
title” is a violation of N. Y. C. Admin. Code §8–107 “where the refusal is 
motivated  by  the  individual’s  gender”);  see  also  N. Y. C.  Admin.  Code
§§8–107(1), (4), (5) (2020) (making it unlawful to discriminate on the ba-
sis of “gender” in employment, housing, and public accommodations); cf. 
D. C.  Mun.  Regs.,  tit.  4,  §801.1  (2020)  (making  it  “unlawful  . . .  to  dis-
criminate . . . on the basis of . . . actual or perceived gender identity or 
expression” in “employment, housing, public accommodations, or educa-
tional institutions” and further proscribing “engaging in verbal . . . har-
assment”).

https://policy.umn.edu/operations/genderequity 

60 See University of Minn., Equity and Access: Gender Identity, Gender 
Expression,  Names,  and  Pronouns,  Administrative  Policy  (Dec.  11, 
2019), 
(“University 
members and units are expected to use the names, gender identities, and
pronouns specified to them by other University members, except as le-
gally required”); Meriwether v. Trustees of Shawnee State Univ., 2020 WL 
704615,  *1  (SD  Ohio,  Feb.  12,  2020)  (rejecting  First  Amendment  chal-
lenge  to  university’s  nondiscrimination  policy  brought  by  evangelical
Christian professor who was subjected to disciplinary actions for failing 
to use student’s preferred pronouns). 

61 Cf.  Notice  of Removal  in Vlaming  v.  West  Point  School Board,  No. 
3:19–cv–00773  (ED  Va.,  Oct.  22,  2019)  (contending  that  high  school 
teacher’s firing for failure to use student’s preferred pronouns was based 
on nondiscrimination policy adopted pursuant to Title IX).