The Impact of Bostock vs. Clayton County on Human Resource Management

The Impact of Bostock vs. Clayton County on Human Resource Management
Student's Name
Institution
Course
Professor's Name
Date
The Impact of Bostock vs. Clayton County on Human Resource Management
The Background and Facts of the Case
Background
Many states had ratified laws forbidding LGBTQ employee discrimination at the workplace at the time of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Bostock vs. Clayton County. Additionally, several municipalities have also passed these legislations. Nonetheless, 21 states needed more specific laws to offer enough guidance. Before the Supreme Court Decision, Congress had tried to pass laws amending Title VII to cover sexual orientation issues. For instance, the House of Representatives ratified regulations that amend Title VII in 2007 (Johnson, Wagner, & Drake, 2020). Later, the senate also made such attempts in 2013. The latest trial to change Title VII was done in 2019. Nevertheless, in each case, the Democrats in Congress failed to pass the regulation through the Republicans.
Facts
For ten years, Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County, Georgia. Following Bostock's enrollment into the gay softball league, Clayton County dismissed him based on bad conduct. Subsequently, he sued the county, claiming he was entitled to protection from Title VII (Johnson, Wagner, & Drake, 2020). The respondent did not argue that sexual orientation was pivotal in the dismissal of the petitioner. Instead, it argued that Title VII failed to illegalize such discrimination in the workplace.
The Legal Principle or Law in Question
The law in question was whether Title VII's illegalization of employment discrimination based on sex also covered prohibition against discrimination because of sexual orientation. At the time of Title VII’s ratification in 1964, the issue of LGBTQ was not expected. Therefore, Title VII might not have been prohibited at that time.
The Decision Made and how the Situation Was Resolved
The Supreme Court decided in Bostock vs. Clayton County that Title VII protected the plaintiff against discrimination based on sexual orientation. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that an employee's sex significantly influenced the dismissal decision made by the employer. By applying the literal interpretation of the law, the court decided that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful.
In their additional remarks, the Supreme Court acknowledged the defendant’s argument that the U.S. Congress referred to either “male or female” when it enacted Title IV. In other words, the Supreme Co...