Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 22 Apr 2019

Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (l), against employment discrimination "because of . . . sex" encompasses discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, also covers sexual orientation. The case involved Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who was fired from Altitude Express after disclosing his sexual orientation to a customer. Zarda argued that his termination constituted unlawful discrimination under Title VII. The court held in a landmark decision that discrimination against an employee for being gay or transgender is inherently tied to sex-based considerations and thus falls within the scope of Title VII protections.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

In the dissenting opinion for Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas and in part by Justice Kavanaugh, argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. The dissent contended that when Congress enacted Title VII, it intended to prohibit discrimination solely on the basis of sex as understood at that time—meaning biological distinctions between men and women—not sexual orientation or gender identity. They emphasized a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, asserting that any expansion beyond this original understanding should be left to legislative action rather than judicial reinterpretation. The dissent expressed concern about judicial overreach and warned against courts effectively rewriting statutes under the guise of interpretation without clear congressional intent or mandate.