Angela Giampolo of Giampolo Law.

The week of June 15 marked a movement toward equality amid a chaotic first half of 2020 for the LGBTQ community and—well, everyone. The U.S. Supreme Court shocked everyone with a 6-3 landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, and continued to baffle the country with its 5-4 decision later that week to uphold the DACA act that provides protections for the children of unlawful immigrants.

Specifically in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court held that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers by holding that the term "sex" in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation and gender identity and therefore makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ employees.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch lays out why in just five crisp sentences on the first page of his majority opinion: "In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision; exactly what Title VII forbids."

The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County actually comprised of three cases that called into question the unlawful firing and workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity of two gay men and a transgender woman.  Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express v. Zarda both represented cases of gay men fired based on their sexual orientation and R.G and G.R Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was brought by Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired when she announced she was transitioning to a female and came to work in women's clothes. Sadly, Gerald Bostock is the only surviving plaintiff; Aimee Stephens died last month from kidney disease and Donald Zarda died in 2014 in a base-jumping skydiving accident.

All of these cases were defended on the precedent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that it is unlawful to fire, refuse to hire or discriminate in the workplace on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." In explaining the court's decision, Gorsuch explained the argument that gender identity and sexual orientation fit under the heading of "sex" as the employers were penalizing men for being attracted to men and women being attracted to women, as well as punishing individuals based on the sex they were given at birth. It's worth noting that Gorsuch was President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nominee and has a wide base of conservative support.

Gorsuch's majority opinion framed his analysis to reach his conclusion as an explicit appeal to textualism and uses it to create a simple and basic understanding of "sex" in the Civil Rights Act.

A traditional textualist judge, he has consistently adhered to the method of statutory interpretation, looking toward the plain text of a statute to determine the meaning of legislation. His majority opinion alludes to and refutes other possible methods of interpretation.

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their word would lead to this particular result … but the limits of the drafter's imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

In this case, he does acknowledge the contradiction in legislative intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but ultimately concludes on basic textualist principles. He drew harsh criticism, not only from the three dissenting judges but from traditional textualists around the country who accused Gorsuch of simply updating old statutes to reflect the values of society.

A Supreme Court decision is considered "landmark" when it will impact the day-to-day lives of Americans and change or solidify the fabric of our society. Presently, there are 28 states, including the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that have little to no workplace protections for LGBTQ employees. Additionally, around 4.5% of the U.S. population, or 11 million people, identify as LGBTQ and 88% of them are employed. This case marks a huge step toward protections for members of the LGBTQ community as a significant portion of U.S. society is now protected in the workplace by federal rules regardless of where they live, granting long-overdue security to the LGBTQ community as a whole.

While the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County marks significant progress for the LGBTQ community, the fight for equality is far from over. This decision covers protections only in the workplace. Other areas of discrimination like health care, housing, adoption and education are attacked regularly and lack any legal protections to grant LGBTQ individuals security. Here in Pennsylvania, we are still waiting on passage of House Bill 1404, an amendment to the Human Relations Act of 1955 that declares freedom in entirety from discrimination on the basis of "sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."

All things considered, it was a week for the history books; the Supreme Court not only supported LGBTQ communities with its ruling but upheld DACA and rejected an attack on its compliance with procedure.

We are in a moment.

A moment where people feel empowered and vocal, and society is ripe for a revolution against systemic racism, inequality, corruption, and in turn—massive backlash against Trump-era policies that seek to endanger the rights of all minority communities. We are not out of the woods but as Bostock himself remarked, "it has provided hope," and precedent as the fight for equality marches on this Pride month.

Angela D. Giampolo, principal of Giampolo Law Group, maintains offices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and specializes in LGBT law, business law, real estate law and civil rights. Her website is www.giampololaw.com and she maintains two blogs, www.phillygaylawyer.com and www.lifeinhouse.com. Contact her at [email protected].