In a landmark decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 opinion that the sex discrimination prohibitions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. The opinion was authored by Justice Gorsuch, and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Justice Gorsuch stated that an employer who makes an adverse employment decision based on an individual’s LGBTQ+ status necessarily relies, at least in part, on that individual’s sex. As noted in the syllabus of the opinion, “Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.”

Relying on past cases in other contexts, the court held that neutral labels and motivations do not matter if a decision is based on an individual’s sexual orientation or transgender status. Moreover, it makes no difference if an employer were to treat LGBTQ+ men and LGBTQ+ women the same – the result is a decision based on sex. Any adverse employment decision based on sex, even if sex only played a part in the decision or was not the primary reason for the decision, is prohibited by Title VII.

This decision has broad implications for employers across the country. While a number of states and some municipalities prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status, a majority of states do not include these as protected characteristics. For example, Florida and Ohio do not protect sexual orientation or transgender status under their state anti-discrimination laws applicable to private employers. Now, all businesses with 15 or more employees will be subject to Title VII liability for any adverse decisions based on an individual’s LGBT status.

The case is Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which was consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc., et al. v. Zarda et al., and R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.