Introduction
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed American discrimination law forever. It prohibits employers from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, it is unclear whether it protects homosexual and transgender individuals. The United States Supreme Court considered that question in Bostock v. Clayton County. Gerald Bostock worked for 10 years as a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). Shortly after Bostock started playing in a gay softball league, the county fired him for conduct that occurred while he was a county employee.
During the court session, Gerald Bostock filed a claim for unlawful dismissal. The court recovered from the employer of Clayton County, as compensation for the inevitable future material losses of the wrongfully dismissed employee, the amount of earnings Gerald Bostock could have had while continuing to work (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). The court granted this claim because, in this case, it is impossible or impractical to restore the plaintiff to his former job.
Decision & Findings
Bostock sued in federal court for sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The district court dismissed his claim, and the 11th Circuit affirmed a ruling that Title VII did not prohibit discharge for homosexuality (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). The Supreme Court granted Bostock’s cert petition and joined his case with that of Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor fired a few days after mentioning he was gay, and Amy Stevens, a transgender woman who’d worked for years as a man for a Michigan funeral home but was fired after informing her employer that she intended to live and work as a woman.
Both the 2nd Circuit and Zarda’s case and the 6th Circuit in Stevens’ case ruled that Title VII did prohibit employers from discharging employees for homosexuality or transsexuality. The court considered whether Title VII protects homosexual and transgender individuals from workplace discrimination (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). The court’s answer to this question was positive.
In pertinent part, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against any job applicant or employee because of such individual’s sex. A Title VII defendant cannot avoid liability by citing other factors that contributed to the challenged decision (Juban & Honore, 2020). For that reason, Title VII is triggered when an employer fires an employee because the employee is homosexual or transgender.
For now, identifying as female is a trait the employer accepts in the other employee. In response to dissenters, scholars acknowledged that Title VII might reach farther than its draft version of 1964 anticipated (Dray et al., 2020). When applied to these cases, the statute’s plain language can find no other resolution (Hadjisolomou, 2021). The court concluded that the plaintiffs in all three cases properly accused their employers of violating Title VII (Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020). The court reversed the 11th Circuit in Bostock’s case and affirmed the 2nd and 6th Circuits in Zarda and Stevens cases.
Justice also dissented arguing that Congress has for many years considered but failed to pass bills to add sexual orientation or gender identity to Title VII’s list of protected categories that Congress has considered. Adding these categories means that Congress does not believe Title VII protects them (Fletcher & Everly, 2021). Bostock v. Clayton County will expand the reach of Title VII to protect many more individuals from workplace discrimination.
I do not really believe that the decisions made in the case study were appropriate since the Supreme Court took a law aimed at protecting women’s rights and turned it into a law protecting LGBT rights. By ruling that Title VII does protect them, the court is arguing that the question of whether to include gender identity and sexual orientation in Title VII rests with Congress and the president, not the court.
Thus, adopting this law violates the principle of separation of powers. If you refer to the US employment contract, it contains a ban on unjustified refusal to conclude an employment contract, as well as any restriction of rights and the provision of benefits when concluding and terminating an employment contract. At the same time, it is impossible to rely on such factors as gender, race, skin color, or nationality (Juban & Honore, 2020). In this case, the Labor Code is violated due to unfair dismissal based on gender.
Reasonable Solution
If the court recognizes the existence of illegal dismissal from work, the body may oblige the employer to restore the employee to his former place. However, the psychologically negative atmosphere in the team, established due to homophobic sentiments, will make this decision unreasonable (Hadjisolomou, 2021). Gerald Bostock should be paid the average monthly salary for the entire period of forced absenteeism due to illegal dismissal from the period of dismissal until the day of reinstatement or court decision.
In addition, a reasonable solution would be to correct the entry in the employment record for dismissal at will since, in this case, Gerald Bostock does not plan to work for Clayton County in the future. He did not violate the Labor Code and faithfully performed his work duties for ten years. Hence, it is worth maintaining his reputation as an honest employee (Rudin et al., 2021).
Reasonable solutions will pay compensation for moral damage. Gerald Bostock suffered because of his beliefs and felt oppressed for being gay. Therefore, Clayton County must pay him compensation, as well as pay the employee court costs and the legal services of a representative in court (Waite, 2020). A comprehensive application of these payments for Gerald Bostock and measures against Clayton County will constitute a reasonable solution.
Alternative Recommendations & Solutions
The problem of nontraditional employee orientation is especially relevant in large organizations with a good reputation, such as Clayton County, especially considering that it belongs to the field of child welfare. Such an employee may be rejected not only by colleagues but also by the parents of children. They will certainly try to influence the management so that an employee with a nontraditional orientation is fired (Waite, 2020). Moreover, this is possible in cases where parents are afraid of a negative impact on their children.
However, representatives of sexual minorities cannot be discriminated against. No one should be restricted in their labor rights or freedoms or given certain advantages based on gender, race, nationality, language, or other circumstances unrelated to the employee’s business qualities (Fletcher & Everly, 2021).
Gerald Bostock’s unconventional orientation falls under other circumstances. Contrary to the opinion of some people, representatives of sexual minorities most often behave quite decently (Sifunda-Evelia, 2017). Nontraditional orientation does not at all indicate Gerald Bostock’s immoral behavior.
Therefore, an alternative solution may not be the dismissal of Gerald Bostock, but the preservation of his workplace. At the same time, Clayton County and all stakeholders will be required to attend training related to the problem of homophobia and individual work with a psychologist (Nigro et al., 2014).
The risks of this approach may be short-term negative consequences for Gerald Bostock, such as psychological pressure on him in the team for the first time (Sifunda-Evelia, 2017). However, in the long run, this approach has many advantages. In this way, it will be possible to stop the spread of discrimination from within, not with external pressure, which does not change the root of the problem but only eliminates the consequences.
Biblical Worldview
The Orthodox Church takes a sharply negative position towards homosexuality, which was confirmed and disseminated to the public in an official document entitled The Foundations of the Social Concept of the Orthodox Church. The Bishops’ Council adopted the document in August 2000 (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). In particular, it says that the Church considers homosexuality a sinful damage to human nature, which is overcome in a spiritual effort leading to the healing and personal growth of a person.
The Church resolutely opposes attempts to present the sinful tendency as a norm, and even more so as an object of pride and an example to follow. In addition, the Orthodox Church recommended not to allow persons promoting a homosexual lifestyle to teach and work in educational settings, such as the childhood welfare organization, in which Gerald Bostock works, as well as to senior positions in the army and correctional institutions.
The Bible strictly regulates that sexual contact with men is allowed only with women (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). All other ways of satisfaction are forbidden. At the same time, in the late 90s, several major scandals broke out in the Orthodox Church, related to accusations of high-ranking hierarchs of the Church of homosexuality and the seduction of minors.
The US is a rule-of-law state, the foundation of which is the rule of law. It is the duty of every citizen of the United States – both employees and employers, regardless of their religion – to comply with the laws of their country (Rudin et al., 2021). Therefore, regardless of how the Bible interprets the issue of transgenderism, the US Constitution establishes a guarantee of equality of rights and freedoms of citizens regardless of gender.
Conclusion
Thus, despite the negative perception of the Bible among people of nontraditional orientation, this is not a reason to deny them employment. Indeed, the Bible calls for not hiring homosexuals to work in child welfare institutions, but it is recorded at the legislative level that personal beliefs of this nature are not an obstacle to a person’s employment. The decision rendered in Bostock v. Clayton County is not ideal. It does not take into account the fact that the psychology of stakeholders has remained the same, so the decision taken does not guarantee that there will be no possibility of a repeat of cases of discrimination against homosexuals.
References
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. (2020).
Dray, K. K., Smith, V. R., Kostecki, T. P., Sabat, I. E., & Thomson, C. R. (2020). Moving beyond the gender binary: Examining workplace perceptions of nonbinary and transgender employees. Gender, Work & Organization, 27(6), 1181-1191. Web.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001).
Fletcher, L., & Everly, B. A. (2021). Perceived lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) supportive practices and the life satisfaction of LGBT employees: The roles of disclosure, authenticity at work, and identity centrality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(3), 485-508. Web.
Hadjisolomou, A. (2021). Doing and negotiating transgender on the front line: Customer abuse, transphobia and stigma in the food retail sector. Work, Employment and Society, 35(5), 979-988. Web.
Juban, R. L., & Honore, A. L. (2020). Evolution of transgender employment discrimination in U. S. courts. Journal of Business Diversity, 20(1), 90-100. Web.
Nigro, L., Nigro, F., & Kellough, J. (2014). The new public personnel administration. 7th. Independence, Kentucky. Cengage.
Rudin, J., Billing, T., Farro, A., & Yang, Y. (2021). Bigenderism at work? Organizational responses to trans men and trans women employees. Organization Management Journal, 17(2), 63-81. Web.
Sifunda-Evelia, M. (2017). Human resource management practices: A biblical perspective. Singapore: Partridge. ISBN: 9781543742282.
Waite, S. (2020). Should I stay or should I go? Employment discrimination and workplace harassment against transgender and other minority employees in Canada’s federal public service. Journal of Homosexuality, 68(11), 1833-1859. Web.