Williams Institute Studies Implications of Supreme Court Bostock Decision

A new report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law finds that millions of LGBT people could gain additional non-discrimination protections if courts interpret state laws consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.

In Bostock, the Court held that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Courts have often looked to Title VII case law when interpreting similar provisions in other federal and state laws that apply to housing, public accommodations, education, and other settings.

In the current study, researchers analyzed state sex non-discrimination laws in states without statutes that expressly bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They also estimated the number of LGBT people in each state who stand to gain protections under these laws.

“State laws remain an important source of protection for LGBT people even though Bostock guarantees federal protections in employment,” said lead author Christy Mallory, the Legal Director at the Williams Institute. “Many state non-discrimination laws are broader in scope than Title VII, and many of them protect people from discrimination based on sex in settings where federal law does not, such as public accommodations.”

KEY FINDINGS

  • Employment: 27 states have laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sex, but do not expressly cover both sexual orientation and gender identity.

    • An additional 3.6 million LGBT employees would gain protections from employment discrimination under state laws if they are interpreted consistent with Bostock.
    • Eighteen of these states’ laws apply to smaller employers than Title VII does. LGBT employees for these small employers, who are not covered under Title VII, will gain legal protections from discrimination if these laws are interpreted consistent with Bostock.
    • Four states’ laws offer more robust remedies than Title VII, potentially allowing employees to recover higher monetary damages than they could through a suit brought under federal law.

  • Housing: 26 states have laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on sex, but do not expressly cover both sexual orientation and gender identity.

    • An additional 5.2 million LGBT adults would gain protections from housing discrimination under state laws if they are interpreted consistent with Bostock.

  • Public Accommodations: 23 states have laws that prohibit public accommodations discrimination based on sex, but not based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. These laws are particularly important because federal law does not prohibit sex discrimination in public accommodations.

    • An additional 4.3 million LGBT people age 13 and older would gain protections from public accommodations discrimination under these state laws if they are interpreted consistent with Bostock.

  • Education: 14 states have laws that prohibit education discrimination based on sex, but do not expressly cover both sexual orientation and gender identity.

    • An additional 790,000 LGBT students age 15 and older could gain protections from education discrimination under these state laws if they are interpreted consistent with Bostock.

  • Credit: 15 states have laws that prohibit credit discrimination based on sex, but do not expressly cover either sexual orientation or gender identity.

    • An additional 2.5 million LGBT adults could gain protections from credit discrimination under these state laws if they are interpreted consistent with Bostock.

“There are six states in the country where LGBT people stand to gain comprehensive state-level protections, as these states already have laws that expressly prohibit discrimination based on sex, but not sexual orientation and gender identity, in all five of the settings we analyzed,” said co-author Luis A. Vasquez, the Renberg Law Fellow at the Williams Institute. “These states include Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.”

Read the report here. For more by the Williams Institute, click here!

Keep reading Show less

Financial Planning for the LGBTQ+ community

The new year has arrived. For many people, that means making resolutions and thinking of ways they can do better in the coming year and beyond. Money management and financial planning are often very popular resolutions and goals, but most financial advice tends to be aimed at heterosexual couples who want to grow their family and raise children.

But, what if your life goals are different? What if you don’t receive the same protection under the current laws as hetero couples?
What if you don’t want to have kids?

Keep reading Show less
Photo courtesy of Joe Eats World

Slane Irish Whiskey bottles

Disclaimer: My trip was provided courtesy of a press trip but all opinions about the trip and events are my own. Please note there are affiliate links and at no additional cost to you, I may earn a commission if you make a purchase.

Keep reading Show less
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Mental Health for LGBTQ+ Aging Adults

Queer elders have made a big impact on the world. Queer folks over the age of 65 were around during the Stonewall Movement in the 1960s and may have even campaigned to improve the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ people around the world.

But, as queer elders enter later life, they may need to find new ways to protect and preserve their mental health.

Keep reading Show less