Employment Law Assignment: Case Analysis Of Bostock v. Clayton County

Question

Task: The case undertaken in this employment law assignment is Bostock v. Clayton County Please address the following questions for your final assignment:
(1) What are five pieces of information about the case that you learned from listening to the oral argument that you did not know before
(2) How effectively do you think each of the advocates for the respective parties presented their respective cases and
(3) To what extent do you think listening to the oral arguments may have affected the justices’ opinions of the case and your own opinion of the case

Answer

1) Five pieces of information about the case
• One of the major pieces of information that have been acquired about the case undertaken herein employment law assignment is that an employee had been fired as he had taken part in a softball league arranged by gay people. The organisation fired Bostock due to the fact that he is gay. The employer has demonstrated sexual discrimination against the employee(Oyez, 2019).
• Another major piece of information acquired about the case is that Section 703(a) of Title prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation(justice.gov, 2010). Title of the Civil Rights of 1964 forbids an employer from practising discrimination against an employee on the basis of the employees' colour, race, sex, religion or national origin(Tafuri, 2018).
• The third key piece of information about the case that has been acquired is that the ruling of the case has been hailed as one of the most significant official decisions related to LGBT rights in the United States along with the other similar cases. The case is considered to be one of the most important cases as it has provided a vital outcome for the LGBT community of the US.
• It has also been known from the case that Title was developed with the intention to ensure that men did not have any disadvantage related to women and women did not have disadvantages related to men.
• The lawsuit filed by Bostock was dismissed by the district court on the basis of failure to state a claim. Bostock then appealed to the US Court of Appeals. It has been pointed out by the Eleventh Circuit panel that a prior panel’s holding cannot b overruled by it when an intervening Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit en banc decision is absent.

2) Effectiveness of the advocates
Advocate Pamela S. Karlan has effectively put her opinions and perspective before the Chief Justice related to the case. Ms Karlan has demonstrated the differences between the treatment of a person whose sexual orientation is straight and another person whose sexual orientation is gay or others. Ms Karlan has established the fact that an organisation does not terminate an employee who dates their opposite gender but when they date the same gender people consider it as an offence and the employee suffers the consequences. Ms Karlan has also put forward her opinion regarding the discrimination men face who are effeminate rather than macho. Advocate Karlan has also talked about the en banc Second Circuit which forces the judges to result where the frequency of the epithets such as “gay”, “queer” and others are counted for determining whether discrimination is based on sexual orientation or sex or not. The stereotypes that men are expected to fit into have been elaborately discussed by Ms Karlan. All the elements that she has discussed have added strength to the case of Bostock. The discussion and opinions that are put forward by Ms Karlan show the effectiveness of M Karlan as an advocate(Oyez, 2019).

Advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburghas argued with MsKarlan regarding the argument which dated back to 1964, which indicated the same-sex relationship that has been considered as a criminal offence in many states. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also stated that the American Psychiatric Association has labelled homosexuality as a mental disorder. Advocate John G. Roberts, Jr. has asked MsKarlan about how she feels about the fact that the entire burden is being placed on updating the old rules and regulations on legislative branches.MsKarlan has shown her disagreements very clearly to the facts that have been stated to support the discrimination against Bostock. The disagreements that Ms Karlan had with the other advocates and judges have been shown by her very clearly in her statement.

Ms Karlan has made clear mentions about Title of the Civil Rights of 1964 which restricts an employer to terminate or discriminate against any employee on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion or nationality. The point that Advocate Karlan wanted to establish has been effectively established by her with the help of all the necessary information related to the case. Advocate Pamela S. Karlan has efficiently used the references of the other old cases to communicate clearly with the other advocates and judges. For instance, the Dothard against Rawlinson case has been used by Ms Karlan to make the advocates and judges understand the fact someone from the opposite sex cannot be guarded(Oyez, 2019). Thus, I can clearly state that the advocates present in the oral argument have effectively presented their opinions, statements and information about the case. The statements and their counters have been considered effective to provide me with the details of the case and the laws related to the case.

3) Effect of the oral argument on the justices’ opinion
We all are aware of the result of the Bostock vs. Clayton County case. It can be said that the oral argument played a significant part in influencing the judges’ opinion. The oral argument clearly demonstrated the points that were needed to be established for supporting the case filed by Bostock. The counter statements have helped us to get more in the depth of the case with the referral of the other old cases which were handled by the same court. The in-depth analysis of the old cases has helped us to understand the significance of the reference of the old cases. Various examples of the old cases have been used by Ms Karlan to make the advocates and judges understand the foundation of the case. The examples were all used in favour of the complaint that has been filed by Bostock. The justices’ opinion can be affected by the oral arguments as the facts related to the case and other relevant cases were all being stated clearly and the justices have been able to understand the clear analysis of the case. A clear explanation of the case and the laws related to the case have been provided by the justices with more information and in-depth information about Bostock’s case. The oral argument also took turns towards other aspects of discriminatory practices towards men andwomen. The judges have been able to understand the facts that Ms Karlan was trying to establish through the oral argument. The details of the case have been well-communicated through the oral argument. The fact that was stated was also countered by various other advocates. Thus, the facts have to be established with the help of deep evaluation and analysis and reference to other similar cases. The reference to other similar cases has provided us with more information and knowledge about theprocesses of dealing with these types of cases.

I think that the judgement of the case has been appropriate as according to my opinion practising discrimination on the basis of gender, sex, sexual orientation or any other aspect is completely unlawful. The law also prohibits acts of discrimination against any employee by the employer. Bostock should not have been terminated due to his sexual orientation as I consider that this is not a valid reason to terminate anyone. The strength and effectiveness that Ms Karlan has shown are commendable. Ms Karlan has effectively established her points in front of the advocates, judges and justices. The outcome of the case was somewhat positively influenced by the statements made by Ms Karlan and the facts that she has stated. I consider this case as one of the most important cases for the legislation of the US as well as the LGBT community of the country.

References
justice.gov. (2010). TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. In justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/Title_VII_Statute.pdf

Oyez. (2019). Bostock v. Clayton County. Employment law assignmentOyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618
Tafuri, S. (2018). TITLE VII’S ANTIRETALIATION PROVISION: ARE EMPLOYEES PROTECTED AFrER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP HAS ENDEDhttps://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-71-3-Tafuri.pdf