Bench & Bar November/December 2025

FEATURE: EMPLOYMENT LAW

BY DANIEL R. GRAHAM A SIMPLE MOMENT A COMPLICATED LEGACY: with Workplace Discrimination in the Years After Bostock.

I n 2020, the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County of Georgia , holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees because of their gender identity and sexual orientation. Given the new administration's Title VII enforcement priorities, questions remain as to the practical impact of the Bos tock decision. With these shifting enforcement priorities, as well as subsequent Supreme Court prec edent, there comes some uncertainty in the broader landscape of employment dis crimination. For example, it is difficult to

predict whether, or the extent to which, an employer’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) policy might serve as the basis for a claim under Title VII. Hopefully, this arti cle will provide some clarity for attorneys whose clients must navigate the ongoing shift in the equal employment opportunity paradigm. BOSTOCK , BATHROOMS, AND BURROWS Few facts were needed to appreciate the question faced by the Supreme Court when it decided Bostock . 1 The plaintiffs in all three of the underlying actions (which the Court considered together after granting certiorari

in each case) alleged they were terminated from their jobs for no reason other than their sexual orientation or gender identi ty. 2 Each claimed their termination violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex-based discrimination. 3 The Sixth Circuit found for Aimee Stephens, whose termination followed soon after she submitted a letter disclosing her gender identity to her employer. 4 The Second Cir cuit reached a similar decision with respect to Daniel Zarda, who was fired from his job days after mentioning he was gay. 5 The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite con clusion, affirming Clayton County’s decision

8 november/december 2025