Changes

Each employee sued for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The lawsuits brought by Mr. Zarda and Mr. Stephens were allowed to proceed by the Second and Sixth Circuits, respectively.  On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it was not illegal for Clayton County, under the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to fire Mr. Bostock for being homosexual; therefore, it was appropriate to dismiss the claim as a matter of law.<ref name="ref1"/>

Each employee sued for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The lawsuits brought by Mr. Zarda and Mr. Stephens were allowed to proceed by the Second and Sixth Circuits, respectively.  On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it was not illegal for Clayton County, under the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to fire Mr. Bostock for being homosexual; therefore, it was appropriate to dismiss the claim as a matter of law.<ref name="ref1"/>

The Supreme court ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 that employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch voted with the liberals, with Justice Gorsuch writing the opinion that articulated the reasoning behind the Court's majority decision.

The Supreme court ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 that employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch voted with the liberals, with Justice Gorsuch writing the opinion that articulated the reasoning behind the Court's majority decision.<ref>https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618</ref>

==See also==

==See also==