SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS + RESOURCES

In August 2020, the Supreme Court decided its blockbuster Title VII cases: No. 17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; No. 17-1623, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda; and No. 18-107, R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Stephens. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch concluded that firing an employee merely for being gay or transgender constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case is important because it establishes that Title VII’s ban on discrimination on the basis of sex covers and protects LGBTQ+ employees.

In August 2019 it became apparent to a group of alumni that Houghton College had become involved as an amicus curiae in these cases. An amicus curiae is a party who files a brief in a case as a “friend of the court” to provide insight or a perspective on a case that the court might not have otherwise considered or been aware of. This amicus brief was filed in support of the employers in these cases and took a distinctive position on this particular question: “Whether sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to sexual orientation or gender identity.”  The named amici curiae signing this brief included the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, The Catholic University of America, Brigham Young University, and 39 Additional Religious Colleges and Universities, including Houghton College.

The position taken by amici (including Houghton College) in this brief was that the language in Title VII (and relatedly, Title IX) does not, and should not be extended by these cases, to include protection for LGBTQ employees. Amici went on to suggest that “[t]he important task of deciding whether and how to address the issue of LGBTQ discrimination in employment properly belongs with Congress, not the courts.”

Amicus Br. 3. Amici disagree with the findings of the Sixth, Second, and Eleventh Circuits below that “‘discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status’ constitutes sex discrimination because ‘it is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,’” (Amicus Br. 12 (citing Stephens Pet. App. 23a)); and that “discrimination based on sexual orientation is ‘sex’ discrimination because ‘one simply cannot consider an individual’s sexual orientation without first considering his sex.’” (Amicus Br. 14 (citing Bostock Pet. Br. 13)).

Upon discovering the college’s involvement in these critical cases, a group of Houghton alumni penned and sent a letter to President Mullen expressing their frustration with the college’s lack of transparency regarding their involvement and how alumni interpreted this brief to be yet another example of Houghton’s harmful and discouraging attitude toward LGBTQ+ students. President Mullen responded and offered an explanation for Houghton’s involvement: “The reason that Houghton signed onto the Amicus brief was to say that the petitioner’s claims should be reviewed in Congress…The question at stake is whether the very best way to provide protection for LGBTQ persons is to ground that protection in the definition of ‘sex’ as that was established in Title VII and Title IX…The real question addressed in the CCCU [amicus] brief is in which forum those issues can best be resolved.” The original letter and the response can be read below.