Gerald Lynn Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-13801 (11th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 10, 2018.

Download PDF
Case: 17-13801 Date Filed: 08/27/2020 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-13801 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-01460-ODE GERALD LYNN BOSTOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant, CLAYTON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (August 27, 2020) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Case: 17-13801 Date Filed: 08/27/2020 Page: 2 of 2 Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. 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 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 (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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.