October Term 2019 · Docket 17-1618

Does Title VII ban firing workers for dating same-sex partners?

Employers argue sex discrimination covers only male or female status. Workers argue it covers sexual orientation.

Official caption
Bostock v. Clayton County
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Karlan argued that firing a man for dating men violates Title VII.

    General Francisco argued that sex means male or female, not sexual orientation.

    Chief Justice Roberts asked how to handle policies applying equally to men and women.

    Justice Ginsburg noted differences in prison guard demographics.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether federal law bars firing workers for dating same-sex partners.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 8, 2019.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to rule that Title VII bans sexual orientation discrimination.

the opposing sides want the Court to rule that Title VII only bans male or female status discrimination.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Ms. Karlan argues firing a man for dating men violates Title VII.

General Francisco argues sex means male or female, not gay or straight.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked how to handle policies applying equally to men and women.

Justice Ginsburg noted differences in prison guard demographics.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON