Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Interpreting “Sex” and “Sex Discrimination”: Analyzing Administrative Actions as Responses to Bostock at the Federal Level, US

He, Tianyi LU (2024) SOLM12 20241
Department of Sociology of Law
Abstract
On June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that discrimination against an individual because of this individual’s homosexuality and transgender status violated Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 which prohibited sex discrimination in employment. This landmark case symbolizes a victory for protecting LGBTQ workers under Title VII. However, existing studies have revealed that LGBTQ people in the US continue to be vulnerable. Considering that studies on the responses of the executive branch to Bostock are inadequate, this thesis has adopted 1) Roscoe Pound’s concept of laws in books and action and 2) Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory to better examine how administrative actions at the federal level... (More)
On June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that discrimination against an individual because of this individual’s homosexuality and transgender status violated Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 which prohibited sex discrimination in employment. This landmark case symbolizes a victory for protecting LGBTQ workers under Title VII. However, existing studies have revealed that LGBTQ people in the US continue to be vulnerable. Considering that studies on the responses of the executive branch to Bostock are inadequate, this thesis has adopted 1) Roscoe Pound’s concept of laws in books and action and 2) Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory to better examine how administrative actions at the federal level respond to Bostock’s holding from an intersectional perspective. Collecting 15 released documents from the federal government between 2020 (after Bostock) and 2023, this thesis has analyzed the data based on a thematic analysis. It has found that the government’s responses to Bostock take multiple forms, with 1) various purposes to reflect on current policies, 2) various interpretations of sex and sex discrimination, 3) strategic applications of Bostock, 4) diverse policy implementation, and 5) overlapping discrimination concerns and solutions. The findings suggest from a policy perspective that policy support for intersectional struggles remains inadequate today. In addition, political will plays a significant role in efficiently (or not) translating case law into social context, and political affiliation may affect how federal administrations interpret and enforce Bostock’s holding. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
He, Tianyi LU
supervisor
organization
course
SOLM12 20241
year
type
H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
subject
language
English
id
9161025
date added to LUP
2024-06-19 13:00:02
date last changed
2024-06-19 13:00:02
@misc{9161025,
  abstract     = {{On June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that discrimination against an individual because of this individual’s homosexuality and transgender status violated Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 which prohibited sex discrimination in employment. This landmark case symbolizes a victory for protecting LGBTQ workers under Title VII. However, existing studies have revealed that LGBTQ people in the US continue to be vulnerable. Considering that studies on the responses of the executive branch to Bostock are inadequate, this thesis has adopted 1) Roscoe Pound’s concept of laws in books and action and 2) Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory to better examine how administrative actions at the federal level respond to Bostock’s holding from an intersectional perspective. Collecting 15 released documents from the federal government between 2020 (after Bostock) and 2023, this thesis has analyzed the data based on a thematic analysis. It has found that the government’s responses to Bostock take multiple forms, with 1) various purposes to reflect on current policies, 2) various interpretations of sex and sex discrimination, 3) strategic applications of Bostock, 4) diverse policy implementation, and 5) overlapping discrimination concerns and solutions. The findings suggest from a policy perspective that policy support for intersectional struggles remains inadequate today. In addition, political will plays a significant role in efficiently (or not) translating case law into social context, and political affiliation may affect how federal administrations interpret and enforce Bostock’s holding.}},
  author       = {{He, Tianyi}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Interpreting “Sex” and “Sex Discrimination”: Analyzing Administrative Actions as Responses to Bostock at the Federal Level, US}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}