# What is the significance of docket number 17-1618?

legalpdf.io · August 4, 2026

> Docket no. 17-1618 refers to a landmark Supreme Court case, Bostock v. Also worth reading: What is the significance of Witness 16 in the FBI interview...

Docket no.

17-1618 refers to a landmark Supreme Court case, Bostock v.

**Also worth reading:** [What is the significance of Witness 16 in the FBI interview Exhibit D 470 ATT 4?](https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_is_the_significance_of_witness_16_in_the_fbi_interview_exhibit_d_470_att_4.php) · [Will AI really replace a large number of jobs in the future?](https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/will_ai_really_replace_a_large_number_of_jobs_in_the_future.php) · [What should I do if my landlord refuses to provide their PAN card number?](https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_should_i_do_if_my_landlord_refuses_to_provide_their_pan_card_number.php)

Clayton County, which was decided on June 15, 2020.

The case had a significant impact on LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace.

The case consolidated three separate appeals: Bostock v.

Clayton County (17-1618), Altitude Express Inc.

v.

Zarda (17-1623), and R.G.

& G.R.

Harris Funeral Homes Inc.

v.

EEOC (18-107).

The central issue in Bostock v.

Clayton County was whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination "because of sex," also protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the plain meaning of "sex" in Title VII encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This ruling extended federal employment discrimination protections to millions of LGBTQ+ workers across the United States.

The Bostock decision overturned previous appellate court rulings that had held Title VII did not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2019, and the opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Trump.

The Bostock ruling was considered a surprise victory for LGBTQ+ rights, as the Court's conservative-leaning majority sided with the more liberal interpretation of Title VII.

The decision was seen as a significant departure from the Court's previous reluctance to expand civil rights protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Docket no.

17-1618 represents the Supreme Court's docket number for the Bostock v.

Clayton County case, which was the lead case among the three consolidated appeals.

The Bostock decision has been praised as a landmark civil rights victory, but it has also faced criticism from some conservative and religious groups who argued it infringed on religious freedoms.

Legal scholars have noted that the Bostock ruling could have far-reaching implications for other areas of law, such as housing, education, and healthcare, where LGBTQ+ discrimination has been a longstanding issue.

The Bostock decision was seen as a significant victory for the LGBTQ+ community, which had long fought for explicit federal employment protections against discrimination.

The case was closely watched by both civil rights advocates and religious liberty groups, as it represented a clash between two competing sets of rights.

Docket no.

17-1618 will likely be remembered as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ equality in the United States.

The Bostock ruling was praised for its clear and unambiguous language, which rejected the argument that Title VII's protections were limited to the original understanding of the term "sex" at the time of the law's enactment.

The decision was seen as a significant victory for the EEOC, which had argued for a broad interpretation of Title VII's sex discrimination provisions to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Docket no.

17-1618 represents a case that could have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of other civil rights statutes and the ongoing debate over the interplay between LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedoms.

The Bostock decision was met with mixed reactions from the legal community, with some praising it as a groundbreaking civil rights victory and others criticizing it as an overreach of judicial power.

Docket no.

17-1618 will likely be a case that is studied and analyzed for years to come, as it represents a significant shift in the Supreme Court's approach to LGBTQ+ rights and the interpretation of federal civil rights laws.

Canonical: https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_is_the_significance_of_docket_number_17-1618.php
Markdown: https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_is_the_significance_of_docket_number_17-1618.php/index.md