Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Texas Law Review Online
Publication Date
2019
ISSN
1942-857X
Page Number
83
Keywords
sexual orientation, transgender, sex stereotypes, Title VII, employment discrimination
Disciplines
Law | Sexuality and the Law
Abstract
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is discrimination “because of sex” to fire an employee because of their sexual orientation or transgender identity. There’s a simple textual argument that it is: An employer cannot take action on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation or transgender identity without considering the employee’s sex. But while this argument is simple, it was not one that federal courts adopted until recently. This has caused some judges to object that the simple argument must be inconsistent with the original meaning of Title VII. In the words of one Fifth Circuit judge, “If the first forty years of uniform circuit precedent nationwide somehow got the original understanding of Title VII wrong, no one has explained how.”
This Essay explains how the first forty years of circuit precedent got Title VII wrong. It demonstrates that, rather than relying on the statutory text, early appellate decisions relied on their era’s misunderstanding of LGBTQ identities as pathological, unnatural, and deviant. The errors of the early cases persisted as a result of stare decisis, until the old doctrine was rendered indefensible by changing social attitudes, the rise of textualism, and the Supreme Court’s recognition that Title VII forbids an employer from insisting that men or women conform to sex stereotypes. This account has important implications for the pending cases, as well as for social movements that seek to disable prejudice.
Recommended Citation
Jessica A. Clarke,
How the First Forty Years of Circuit Precedent Got Title VII's Sex Discrimination Provision Wrong, 98 Texas Law Review Online. 83
(2019)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/1120