Writing Assignment #2 DUE 4/11/24 AT 10 AM: Read & Analyze A Textualist's Dream: Reviewing Justice Gorsuch's Opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County - University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog

Student Name Professor Name Course Date Examining Pointdexter’s Position on Justice Gorsuch’s Opinion Hunter Pointdexter’s position in “A Textualist Dream: Reviewing Justice Gorsuch’s Opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County” article is that Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion is textualist. Additionally, the fact that the opinion favors the LGBTQ community does not mean that Gorsuch, a self-proclaimed textualist, has not become a liberal jurist. Therefore, his opinion should not be misconceived as a potential shift in ideological positioning because the basis of the ruling is the written word of a statute. Pointdexter discusses Justice Gorsuch’s jurisprudence after considering the rulings in the Bostock, Zarda, and Harris Funeral Homes cases to illustrate this position. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Pointdexter establishes that the basis of the lawsuit was on a gay man’s discharge, Gerald Bostock, from Clayton County. Bostock, a child services advocate, served in the county until 2013 before being fired. His accomplishments, as evidenced by multiple prizes for excellence, earned him high respect at work. Bostock began playing in a gay softball league in 2013, prompting several notable members to make disparaging remarks. He was later subjected to an “unwarranted audit” and got fired for what the county termed “conduct unbecoming of a county employee.” The advocate sued Clayton under Title VII for discrimination. The District Court rejected the complaint, ruling that Title VII’s sex discrimination ban did not cover sexual orientation discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the ruling, and on 22nd April 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Zarda was a skydiving instructor for Altitude Express in the Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda case. Zarda informed a customer about him being gay, and the firm sacked him because he shared inappropriate information with the customer about his life.” Zarda complained to the EEOC- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about the company and eventually sued it under Title VII. The District Court determined that Title VII did not protect against sexual exploitation discrimination. The Second Circuit reversed the verdict, ruling that sexual orientation constituted a subcategory of sex-based actions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, meaning that this case was, in many aspects, similar to the Bostock case. The Harris Funeral Homes case differed from the above two cases because it was about gender identity. Doctors assigned Stephens the male gender at birth, and after six years of working for Harris Funeral Homes, she told her boss that she wanted to begin working and living as a female. Harris Funeral Homes later fired Stephens, and the employer admitted that the dismissal was related to gender identification rather than job performance. The District Court denied the employer’s petition to dismiss, determining that Stephens could sue. However, the District Court favored the employer since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempts funeral homes...