He later died in an accident, but his sister has pursued his suit in Altitude Express vs. Zarda. After his employer, Altitude Express, learned of this, he was sacked.
Mr Bostock says he lost his job after joining a gay recreational softball league, thereby publicly revealing his sexual orientation.
Born a boy 58 years ago, Aimee Stephens worked for a Detroit funeral home for six years before telling her employer she wanted to be issued a female uniform. In February 2018, the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of discrimination based on sex that is prohibited under Title VII. "All fair-minded Americans should be watching these cases and loudly letting our US Supreme Court Justices know that the public is against the right to discriminate".
Supreme Court justices are mulling what the impact would be if they ruled that federal civil rights law protects LGBT people from job discrimination. Not just about this case, but future cases too.
Textualism and originalism, broadly speaking, call for statutes to be interpreted as written and for the Constitution to be interpreted as the Framers originally intended.
The justices also heard arguments Monday on whether the Sixth Amendment applies to state courts, that is, whether juries can convict criminals without a unanimous verdict. 8, are the court's first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement and replacement by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"Logically, because sexual orientation is a function of sex and sex is a protected characteristic under Title VII, it follows that sexual orientation is also protected", wrote Chief Judge Robert Katzmann. She was planning to exchange the dark suit and tie she had worn to work for almost six years as an embalmer and funeral director for a conservative dress or skirt that was required for women who worked for Rost.
Opponents counter that when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, its original intent was to prohibit employers from treating members of one sex worse than similarly situated members of the other sex.
Kavanaugh asked only one question: A legal technical inquiry on the difference between the plain and ordinary meaning of Title VII. So, this is the first transgender rights case to come before the Supreme Court, ever.
In the first of two cases, the justices heard arguments on whether a federal law banning job discrimination on the basis of sex should also protect sexual orientation. The proposed "free pass" for sex stereotypes puts at risk our nation's sex discrimination law and the tens of millions who depend on it every day at work. "Will they stick to the rules of textualism as previously articulated to them?"
And this could be where the significance of the decision extends beyond the interests of LGBTQ employees across the country, some experts say. In 2015, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
The US Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has supported the employers in each case.
They promise to be landmark cases for LGBT rights in the United States, four years after gay marriage became legal nationwide. The justices will vote on whether or not the EEOC can enforce Title VII on a national level, or whether it can be left up to the individual state governments.
The Trump administration, reversing the position of the Obama administration, will argue in the Supreme Court against the LGBTQ employees. However, this case is the first major gay rights issue to cross the bench since the justices made a decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015.