Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 156

12 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

On occasion, it can be difficult for judges to assess ordi-
nary meaning.  Not here.  Both common parlance and com-
mon legal usage treat sex discrimination and sexual orien-
tation  discrimination  as  two  distinct  categories  of 
discrimination—back in 1964 and still today.

As to common parlance, few in 1964 (or today) would de-
scribe a firing because of sexual orientation as a firing be-
cause of sex.  As commonly understood, sexual orientation 
discrimination is distinct from, and not a form of, sex dis-
crimination.  The majority opinion acknowledges the com-
mon understanding, noting that the plaintiffs here proba-
bly did not tell their friends that they were fired because of
their sex.  Ante, at 16.  That observation is clearly correct.
In common parlance, Bostock and Zarda were fired because
they were gay, not because they were men. 

Contrary  to  the  majority  opinion’s  approach  today,  this
Court  has  repeatedly  emphasized  that  common  parlance 
matters in assessing the ordinary meaning of a statute, be-
cause  courts  heed  how  “most  people”  “would  have  under-
stood” the text of a statute when enacted.  New Prime Inc. 
v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 6–7); 
see Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U. S. ___, 
___  (2017)  (slip  op.,  at  4)  (using  a  conversation  between 
friends to demonstrate ordinary meaning); see also Wiscon-
sin  Central  Ltd.  v.  United  States,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2018) (slip op., at 2–3) (similar); AT&T, 562 U. S., at 403– 
404 (similar). 

Consider the employer who has four employees but must 
fire two of them for financial reasons.  Suppose the four em-
ployees are a straight man, a straight woman, a gay man,
and a lesbian.  The employer with animosity against women
(animosity based on sex) will fire the two women.  The em-
ployer with animosity against gays (animosity based on sex-
ual  orientation)  will  fire  the  gay  man  and  the  lesbian. 
Those are two distinct harms caused by two distinct biases
that have two different outcomes.  To treat one as a form of