Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

12 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

against  her,  rated  her  a  “model  employee.”    At  the  party,
the  employer  learned  something  new,  her  sexual  orienta-
tion,  and  it  was  this  new  information  that  motivated  her 
discharge.    So  this  is  another  example  showing  that  dis-
crimination  because  of  sexual  orientation  does  not  inher-
ently involve discrimination because of sex.

In  addition  to  the  failed  argument  just  discussed,  the
Court makes two other arguments, more or less in passing. 
The first of these is essentially that sexual orientation and 
gender identity are closely related to sex.  The Court argues
that sexual orientation and gender identity are “inextrica-
bly bound up with sex,” ante, at 10, and that discrimination 
on  the  basis  of  sexual  orientation  or  gender  identity  in-
volves the application of “sex-based rules,” ante, at 17.  This 
is a variant of an argument found in many of the briefs filed
in support of the employees and in the lower court decisions 
that agreed with the Court’s interpretation.  All these vari-
ants stress that sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity 
are  related  concepts.  The  Seventh  Circuit  observed  that 
“[i]t would require considerable calisthenics to remove ‘sex’
from ‘sexual orientation.’ ”  Hively, 853 F. 3d, at 350.11  The 
Second Circuit wrote that sex is necessarily “a factor in sex-
ual orientation” and further concluded that “sexual orien-
tation is a function of sex.”  883 F. 3d 100, 112–113 (CA2 
2018) (en banc).  Bostock’s brief and those of amici support-
ing  his  position  contend  that  sexual  orientation  is  “a  sex-
based consideration.”12  Other briefs state that sexual ori-
entation is “a function of sex”13 or is “intrinsically related to 

—————— 

11 See also Brief for William  N. Eskridge Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae  2 
(“[T]here is no reasonable way to disentangle sex from same-sex attrac-
tion or transgender status”). 

12 Brief for Petitioner in No. 17–1618, at 14; see also Brief for Southern 

Poverty Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae 7–8. 

13 Brief for Scholars Who Study the LGB Population as Amici Curiae 

in Nos. 17–1618, 17–1623, p. 10.