Gerald Bostock Wiki – Gerald Bostock Biography
Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia, According to the Supreme Court, where “under his leadership, the county won national awards for its work.”
Gerald Bostock Career
After about 10 years working for the county, Bostock joined a gay recreational softball league. SCOTUS wrote, “influential members of the community allegedly made disparaging comments about Mr. Bostock’s sexual orientation and participation in the league. Soon, he was fired for conduct ‘unbecoming’ a county employee.”
Bostock worked for the county from 2003 to 2013 when he was fired. In a video made by The Human Rights Campaign, Bostock said, “I absolutely loved my job. It was my dream job.” He said he advocated for child abuse and neglect victims.
Bostock said that, “one day I decided to join a gay recreational softball league, and from that moment forward my life changed. Because I was fired.”
Bostock said that when he was told his reason for termination was, “conduct unbecoming of a Clayton County employee” that he “knew immediately that it was because of my sexual orientation. It was the most difficult day of my life aside from my cancer diagnoses. I barely remember driving home. I lost my livelihood. I lost my medical insurance at a time I was recovering from prostate cancer.”
But Bostock says the issue wasn’t only about him getting fired for being gay. It was bigger than him.
“But what about the children right here today that identify as LGTBQ?,” he thought. “What kind of message did Clayton County send to those children? The message I hear is that their lives don’t matter. It’s no longer just about me. This is an issue of national importance. It impacts millions of people across this country.”
After years of moving through the court system, Bostock’s case was consolidated with Zarda’s case, and on April 22 the Supreme Court announced it would take up the three cases together to look at whether gay and transgendered people should get the protections afforded in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On Oct. 8, 2019 the case was argued in the Supreme Court. The ACLU served as the council in two cases, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (Aimee Stephens) and then Altitude Express v. Zarda (Donald Zarda). Bostock’s case was later incorporated into the Zarda case.
Bostock and with Stephens were both there that day.
Bostock said he believed in the U.S justice system and what the Supreme Court building stands for. He was optimistic that the justices would “make the right decision,” adding, “No one should go to work fearful of losing their job because of who they are, how they identify or who they love,” Bostock said.
Gerald Bostock in landmark SCOTUS Decision
In a landmark decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people in the United States cannot be fired for being gay or transgender. The case had three different plaintiffs, Aimee Stephens, Don Zarda, and Gerald Bostock, all of whom were fired on the basis of their sexuality.
In SCOTUS’s ruling, they said, “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII,” which makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
According to SCOTUS’s opinion on the historic decision, while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may not have been written to include the LGTBQ community, “the limits of the drafters’ imaginations” are no reason to “ignore the law’s demands.” They wrote:
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.
Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.