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.
GERALD LYNN BOSTOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant, CLAYTON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
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PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.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
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.