Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 73

36 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

clear, and therefore it simply does not matter whether peo-
ple  in  1964  were  “smart  enough  to  realize”  what  its  lan-
guage means.  Hively, 853 F. 3d, at 357 (Posner, J., concur-
ring).  According  to  the  Court,  an  argument  that  looks  to
the societal norms of those times represents an impermis-
sible attempt to displace the statutory language.  Ante, at 
25–26. 

The  Court’s  argument  rests  on  a  false  premise.    As  al-
ready explained at length, the text of Title VII does not pro-
hibit discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender
identity.  And what the public thought about those issues
in 1964 is relevant and important, not because it provides 
a ground for departing from the statutory text, but because 
it helps to explain what the text was understood to mean
when adopted.

In arguing that we must put out of our minds what  we 
know about the time when Title VII was enacted, the Court 
relies on Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court in Oncale v. 
Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75 (1998).  But 
Oncale  is  nothing  like  these  cases,  and  no  one  should  be 
taken in by the majority’s effort to enlist Justice Scalia in 
its updating project.

The  Court’s  unanimous  decision  in  Oncale  was  thor-
oughly  unremarkable.  The  Court  held  that  a  male  em-
ployee who alleged that he had been sexually harassed at 
work by other men stated a claim under Title VII.  Although
the impetus for Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination 
was to protect women, anybody reading its terms would im-
mediately appreciate that it applies equally to both sexes, 
and  by  the  time  Oncale  reached  the  Court,  our  precedent 
already established that sexual harassment may constitute 
sex  discrimination  within  the  meaning  of  Title  VII.    See 
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57 (1986).
Given  these  premises,  syllogistic  reasoning  dictated  the 
holding.