Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 

changed two things:  the applicant’s sex and her trait of fail-
ing to conform to 1950s gender roles.  The “simple test” thus
overlooks that it is really the applicant’s bucking of 1950s 
gender  roles,  not  her  sex,  doing  the  work.    So  we  need  to 
hold that second trait constant:  Instead of comparing the 
disappointed female applicant to a man who applied for the
same position, the employer would say, we should compare 
her to a man who applied to be a secretary.  And because 
that  jobseeker  would  be  refused too,  this  must  not  be  sex 
discrimination. 

No  one  thinks  that,  so  the  employers  must  scramble  to
justify  deploying  a  stricter  causation  test  for  use  only  in 
cases involving discrimination based on sexual orientation
or transgender status.  Such a rule would create a curious 
discontinuity  in  our  case  law,  to  put  it  mildly.  Employer
hires based on sexual stereotypes?  Simple test.  Employer
sets pension contributions based on sex?  Simple test.  Em-
ployer fires men who do not behave in a sufficiently mascu-
line  way  around  the  office?  Simple  test.  But  when  that 
same  employer  discriminates  against  women  who  are  at-
tracted to women, or persons identified at birth as women 
who later identify as men, we suddenly roll out a new and
more rigorous standard?  Why are these reasons for taking
sex into account different from all the rest?  Title VII’s text 
can offer no answer. 

B 
Ultimately, the employers are forced to abandon the stat-
utory text and precedent altogether and appeal to assump-
tions and policy.  Most pointedly, they contend that few in
1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimina-
tion  against  homosexual  and  transgender  persons.    And 
whatever  the  text  and  our  precedent  indicate,  they  say, 
shouldn’t this fact cause us to pause before recognizing lia-
bility?

It might be tempting to reject this argument out of hand.