'Sex' and Religion after Bostock

AM. CONST. SOC’Y, SUPREME COURT REVIEW 2019-2020, at 45 (Steven D. Schwinn ed., 4th ed. 2020)

Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-45

24 Pages Posted: 21 Nov 2020 Last revised: 26 Feb 2022

See all articles by Sachin S. Pandya

Sachin S. Pandya

University of Connecticut

Marcia L. McCormick

Saint Louis University - School of Law

Abstract

This paper reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County. There, the Court held that by barring employer discrimination against any individual “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bars employment discrimination because an individual is gay or transgender. The paper then speculates about how much Bostock will affect how likely lower court judges will read other “sex” discrimination prohibitions in the U.S. Code in the same way, in part based on a canvass of the text of about 150 of those prohibitions. The paper also discusses the religion-based defenses that defendants may raise in response under Title VII itself, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And the paper suggests how Bostock’s effect will likely vary with the influence of Trump-appointed federal judges.

Suggested Citation

Pandya, Sachin S. and McCormick, Marcia L., 'Sex' and Religion after Bostock. AM. CONST. SOC’Y, SUPREME COURT REVIEW 2019-2020, at 45 (Steven D. Schwinn ed., 4th ed. 2020), Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-45, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704910

Sachin S. Pandya (Contact Author)

University of Connecticut ( email )

University of Connecticut School of Law
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
United States
8605705169 (Phone)

Marcia L. McCormick

Saint Louis University - School of Law ( email )

100 N. Tucker Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63101
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
45
Abstract Views
410
PlumX Metrics