sex discrimination final exam

What was the legal issue in Bostock?

Whether firing an employee for being gay or transgender is discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII.

in bostock What did the Supreme Court hold?

Yes. Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination “because of sex.”

What interpretive method did Justice Gorsuch use? in bostock

Textualism — focusing strictly on the ordinary public meaning of the statutory text in 1964.

Why did Gorsuch say this counts as sex discrimination? in bostock

Because if an employer fires a man for being attracted to men but would not fire a woman for the same conduct, sex is a but‑for cause.

What did Alito and Kavanaugh argue in dissent?in bostock

• The Court was rewriting Title VII, not interpreting it.

• Congress, not the Court, should decide LGBTQ protections.

Sex‑discrimination significance in bostock

Expanded the meaning of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity — a major doctrinal shift.

What was the issue in U.A.W v Johnson Control

Whether a company can exclude fertile women from certain jobs to protect potential fetuses from lead exposure.

What law was interpreted? in U.A.W v Johnson Control

Title VII + the BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) exception.

What did the Court hold? in U.A.W v Johnson Control

The policy violated Title VII. Fertility is not a BFOQ. Employers cannot make sex‑based decisions “for women’s own protection.”

What is the BFOQ safety rule?

A sex‑based rule is only valid if sex itself is essential to job performance — not paternalism, stereotypes, or fetal‑protection concerns.

Why is this a major sex‑discrimination case? in U.A.W v Johnson Control

• Rejects “protective” laws that limit women’s opportunities.

• Reinforces that women decide risks, not employers.

Feminist or anti‑safety? in U.A.W v Johnson Control

Feminist in rejecting paternalism; critics say it weakens workplace safety protections.

What was the issue? Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987)

Whether Title VII permits gender‑based affirmative action in employment decisions.

What did the Court hold? Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987)

Yes — Title VII allows gender‑based affirmative action if:

1. It aims to remedy underrepresentation, and

2. It does not unnecessarily trammel male employees’ rights.

What rule did the Court adopt? Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987)

The Weber/Johnson rule:
Affirmative action is lawful when it is:

• Remedial,

• Temporary,

• Flexible (no quotas),

• And addresses a “manifest imbalance.”

Sex‑discrimination significance? Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987)

Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination does not forbid voluntary efforts to increase women’s representation.

What was the issue? Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Whether a woman can sue for pay discrimination when she discovers it years after the discriminatory pay decisions were made.

What did the conservative majority hold? Ledbetter v. Goodyear

No. The 180‑day filing deadline runs from the original discriminatory pay decision, not each paycheck.

Why was this controversial? Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Pay discrimination is often hidden; women may not know they are underpaid until years later.

How did Congress respond? Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009) — each discriminatory paycheck resets the filing deadline.

Sex‑discrimination significance? Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Shows how statutory interpretation can limit protections for women — and how Congress can override the Court.

What was the issue? U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

Whether VMI’s male‑only admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause.

What did the Court hold? U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

Yes — VMI’s exclusion of women was unconstitutional.

What standard did the Court apply? U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

Heightened (intermediate) scrutiny with the requirement of an “exceedingly persuasive justification.”

Why did VMI lose?

• Justifications were based on stereotypes.

• The alternative women’s program was not equal.

• Sex classifications must be based on real differences, not tradition.

Sex‑discrimination significance? U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

• Strengthened intermediate scrutiny.

• Major victory for gender equality in education.

What are the three areas where BFOQ might apply?

1. Safety — allowed only if sex is essential (Johnson Controls rejects fetal‑protection).

2. Efficiency/business costs — never accepted by the Court.

3. Privacy — sometimes relevant (prisons, healthcare), but rarely upheld.

What are the two competing approaches to interpreting “because of sex”?

• Strict textualism (Bostock majority)

• Purpose‑based interpretation (Johnson v. Transportation Agency)