The Question
1. Does employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status constitute discrimination because of sex?
October Term 2019No. 17-1618
Bostock v.Clayton County
The Holdings
1. Yes. Such a firing necessarily takes the employee’s sex into account.
The Votes
6 to 3: Gorsuch, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan / Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh
Question and holding: the case-title teaching pack. Votes: syllabus order from that pack. Opinion
IQuestion presented
The question presented is absent from this file.
IITimeline
- Cert granted Absent from this file
- Argued Absent from this file
- Decided Absent from this file
- Mandate issued Absent from this file
No dates are on file for this docket.
IIIParties, court below, and counsel
Party names and types are absent from this file.
Court below
The court below is absent from this file.
Counsel of record
Counsel of record are absent from this file.
IVArgument
The argument date is absent from this file.
Audio is not rehosted.
VFilings
This file has no docket log. Filing PDFs on the Court's site cover most filings after Nov. 13, 2017.
VIOpinions and votes
- Decided
- Absent from this file
- Vote
- Absent from this file
- Majority author
- Absent from this file
- Issue area
- Absent from this file
- Disposition
- Absent from this file
- Prevailing party
- Absent from this file
- Direction
- Absent from this file
- U.S. Reports
- Absent from this file
Who joined the majority opinion is absent from this file.
Individual votes are absent from this file.
No Supreme Court Database row for this docket.
VIIFurther reading
- Supreme Court docket supremecourt.gov
- Oyez Oyez
Links only. These pages are not rehosted here. Justia and LII need a U.S. Reports citation, and this file has none for this case.
VIIISources
Data as of Supreme Court Database release 2015_01. This docket is not a row in that extract.
| Field | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Case | Bostock v. Clayton County | Case list |
| Docket | 17-1618 | Case list |
| Term | 2019 | Case list |
Cite
First to Five, Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, https://firstto5.ai/cases/2019/17-1618 (accessed Oct. 8, 2026). First to Five. (2026). Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618. https://firstto5.ai/cases/2019/17-1618 "Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618." First to Five, Oct. 8, 2026, https://firstto5.ai/cases/2019/17-1618. How this is measured
RECORD
A count or a field copied from a source file. On this site that is usually the Supreme Court Database.
This page has no Supreme Court Database row.
PUBLISHED MEASURE
A figure published by its authors and shown with their citation. Martin-Quinn scores are the ideology measure. This site does not estimate them.
Published measures are absent from this page.
FIRST TO FIVE MODEL
An estimate computed by First to Five. The party-type backcast is the model in this build. A case page prints it only when that case has a scored row.
Model estimates are absent from this page.