According to Bostock v. Clayton County, what is prohibited under Title VII?

According to Bostock v. Clayton County, what is prohibited under Title VII?

• A. Workplace discrimination based solely on age
• B. Discrimination based on sexual orientation
• C. Discrimination on the basis of physical appearance
• D. Gender-based discrimination only

Answer: (B)

The case of Bostock v. Clayton County is pivotal in understanding the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, particularly regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII's prohibition of discrimination "because of sex" includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means that an employer cannot make employment decisions based on an individual's sexual orientation without violating Title VII. This ruling highlights that if an individual is treated differently due to their sexual orientation, it is inherently related to their sex and therefore constitutes discrimination under the act. This case expanded the understanding of workplace protections to include LGBTQ+ individuals, affirming that bias against someone for being gay or transgender is indeed a form of sex discrimination. The other options relate to different forms of discrimination not covered in this specific ruling, thereby illustrating the importance of the Bostock decision in the context of workplace rights and protections for sexual orientation specifically.

The case of Bostock v. Clayton County is pivotal in understanding the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, particularly regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII's prohibition of discrimination "because of sex" includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means that an employer cannot make employment decisions based on an individual's sexual orientation without violating Title VII.

This ruling highlights that if an individual is treated differently due to their sexual orientation, it is inherently related to their sex and therefore constitutes discrimination under the act. This case expanded the understanding of workplace protections to include LGBTQ+ individuals, affirming that bias against someone for being gay or transgender is indeed a form of sex discrimination.

The other options relate to different forms of discrimination not covered in this specific ruling, thereby illustrating the importance of the Bostock decision in the context of workplace rights and protections for sexual orientation specifically.