Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 79.0

42 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

were, the meaning of the adoption of the prohibition of sex 
discrimination is clear.  It was no accident.  It grew out of
“a long history of women’s rights advocacy that had increas-
ingly  been  gaining  mainstream  recognition  and  ac-
ceptance,”  and  it  marked  a  landmark  achievement  in  the 
path toward fully equal rights for women.  Id., at 140.  “Dis-
crimination against gay women and men, by contrast, was
not on the table for public debate . . . [i]n those dark, pre-
Stonewall days.”  Ibid. 

For those who regard congressional intent as the touch-
stone of statutory interpretation, the message of Title VII’s 
legislative history cannot be missed. 

C 
Post-enactment  events  only  clarify  what  was  apparent 
when Title VII was enacted.  As noted, bills to add “sexual 
orientation” to Title VII’s list of prohibited grounds were in-
troduced in every Congress beginning in 1975, see supra, at 
2, and two such bills were before Congress in 199137 when 
it made major changes in Title VII.  At that time, the three 
Courts of Appeals to reach the issue had held that Title VII 
does not prohibit discrimination because of sexual orienta-
tion,38 two other Circuits had endorsed that interpretation
in dicta,39 and no Court of Appeals had held otherwise.  Sim-
ilarly, the three Circuits to address the application of Title
VII to transgender persons had all rejected the argument 

—————— 

37 H. R. 1430, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., §2(d) (as introduced in the House 
on Mar. 13, 1991); S. 574, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., §5 (as introduced in the
Senate on Mar. 6, 1991). 

38 See Williamson v. A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F. 2d 69, 70 (CA8 
1989) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1089 (1990); DeSantis v. Pa-
cific Tel. & Tel. Co., 608 F. 2d 327, 329–330 (CA9 1979); Blum v. Gulf Oil 
Corp., 597 F. 2d 936, 938 (CA5 1979) (per curiam). 

39 Ruth  v.  Children’s  Med.  Ctr.,  1991  WL  151158,  *5  (CA6,  Aug.  8, 
1991) (per curiam); Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F. 2d 1081, 1084– 
1085 (CA7 1984), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1017 (1985).