Request a Demo Log In
Bostock v. Clayton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 819 Fed. Appx. 891 (11th Cir. 2020), Court Opinion
X9N350V0000N
OPINIONS
Bostock v. Clayton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs
17-13801 Non-Argument Calendar
2020 BL 326026
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 27313
819 Fed. Appx. 891

Search

Search over:

No Matches Found

Search term(s) not found.

Docket Entries Since Last Update
NOTE: This court's RSS feed does not list MOTION entries, so Bloomberg Law cannot detect them and thus they will not be listed here. However, motions will be included if you update the docket.

Copy with Citation

Copy the text below to paste into your document.

Include Parallel Citations
Link citations to Bloomberg Law
Court Opinions
PrimaryFederalReporter,
17-13801 Non-Argument Calendar
819 Fed. Appx. 891
2020 BL 326026
Pagination
*f appx


Majority Opinion >


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT


GERALD LYNN BOSTOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant, CLAYTON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.


No. 17-13801 Non-Argument Calendar

August 27, 2020, Decided

PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-01460-ODE.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.



For GERALD LYNN BOSTOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant: Thomas J. Mew, IV, Timothy Brian Green, Buckley Beal, LLP, ATLANTA, GA; Brian J. Sutherland, Attorney General's Office, SEATTLE, WA.

For CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant - Appellee: Jack Reynolds Hancock, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, FOREST PARK, GA; William Hollis Buechner, Jr., Martin B. Heller, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, ATLANTA, GA.



Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

When this case came to us initially, binding circuit precedent demanded that we affirm the district court's dismissal of Bostock's Title VII sexual orientation discrimination claim for failure to state a claim. See Bostock v. Clayton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 723 F. App'x 964 , 964-65 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (citing relevant [*892] precedent and the prior panel precedent rule). The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded our decision. Bostock v. Clayton Cty ., 590 U.S.    ,    , 140 S. Ct. 1731 , 1754 , 207 L. Ed. 2d 218 (2020). The Supreme Court held that, under the "plain terms" of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) , an employer intentionally, necessarily, and illegally discriminates against an individual because of such individual's sex when the employer discriminates against an employee for being homosexual or transgender. See Bostock, 590 U.S. at    ,    , 140 S. Ct. at 1741 , 1743 . For the reasons stated in the Supreme Court's decision, we reverse the district court's dismissal of Bostock's Title VII claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with that decision.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Jump To
Please enter a valid page number
Pagination
Show Pagination
 

back to top

Enter a Client Matter

Your firm optionally allows a client matter to be selected while you are using Bloomberg Law. Please contact your administrator if you have any questions. Please select from a recently used Client Matter or enter a Client Matter manually.
RECENTLY USED
CLIENT MATTER
Please contact your administrator if you have questions about client matter.
Cancel Submit
Unrecognized Client Matter

Client Matter   does not currently exist in Bloomberg Law. Would you like to add this client matter to the system?
Bloomberg Industry Group
About Us Contact Us
Other Products
Big Law Business Professional Learning BNA
Help Topics
Getting Started BCite Citator Smart Code Points of Law Browse All Help Topics
24/7 BLAW® Help Desk
888.560.2529
help@bloomberglaw.com
0.1435.0
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Copyright Accessibility
© 2022 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.