Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 7

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

county,  Mr.  Bostock  began  participating  in  a  gay  recrea-
tional softball league.  Not long after that, influential mem-
bers  of  the  community  allegedly  made  disparaging  com-
ments  about  Mr.  Bostock’s  sexual  orientation  and 
participation in the league.  Soon, he was fired for conduct 
“unbecoming” a county employee.

Donald  Zarda  worked  as  a  skydiving  instructor  at  Alti-
tude Express in New York.  After several seasons with the 
company, Mr. Zarda mentioned that he was gay and, days
later, was fired. 

Aimee Stephens worked at R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral 
Homes  in  Garden  City,  Michigan.    When  she  got  the  job,
Ms. Stephens presented as a male.  But two years into her 
service with the company, she began treatment for despair 
and  loneliness.   Ultimately,  clinicians  diagnosed  her  with
gender  dysphoria  and recommended  that  she  begin living 
as a woman.  In her sixth year with the company, Ms. Ste-
phens  wrote  a  letter  to  her  employer  explaining  that  she 
planned to “ live and work full-time as a woman” after she 
returned  from  an  upcoming  vacation.    The  funeral  home 
fired her before she left, telling her “this is not going to work 
out.” 

While these cases began the same way, they ended differ-
ently.  Each employee brought suit under Title VII alleging 
unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.  78 Stat. 255, 
42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1).  In Mr. Bostock’s case, the Elev-
enth Circuit held that the law does not prohibit employers 
from firing employees for being gay and so his suit could be
dismissed as a matter of law.  723 Fed. Appx. 964 (2018).
Meanwhile,  in  Mr.  Zarda’s  case,  the  Second  Circuit  con-
cluded that sexual orientation discrimination does violate 
Title  VII  and  allowed  his  case  to  proceed.    883  F. 3d  100 
(2018).  Ms. Stephens’s case has a more complex procedural
history, but in the end the Sixth Circuit reached a decision 
along the same lines as the Second Circuit’s, holding that
Title VII bars employers from firing employees because of