--- title: "Civil Rights: A Supreme Court Clarification" description: Employers should take note of the extension of the Civil Rights Act that was provided by the United States Supreme Court last week. As, quite literally, the supreme court of the land, everyone in Minnesota is subject to the decision. --- [Dan's Desk](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/author/dan-gallatin) - [lawyer](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/lawyer) - [hugo](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/hugo) - [MN](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/mn) - [law](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/law) - [attorney](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/attorney) - [legal](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/legal) [Subscribe](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/civil-rights-a-supreme-court-clarification#) 06/17/2020 # Civil Rights: A Supreme Court Clarification - - - - - [mailto:?subject=Civil%20Rights%3A%20A%20Supreme%20Court%20Clarification&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gallatin-law.com%2Fblog%2Fcivil-rights-a-supreme-court-clarification](mailto:?subject=Civil%20Rights%3A%20A%20Supreme%20Court%20Clarification&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gallatin-law.com%2Fblog%2Fcivil-rights-a-supreme-court-clarification) Employers should take note of the extension of the Civil Rights Act that was provided by the United States Supreme Court last week. As, quite literally, the supreme court of the land, everyone in Minnesota is subject to the decision. The court's decision was an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In short, that Act prohibits discrimination and employment decisions based on non-determinative factors such as race, religion, ethnicity, and the like. In the case of Bostock v. Clay County, Georgia the majority opinion, penned by President Trump's first Supreme Court appointee, stated that sexual orientation, if a factor in making an employment decision, is inclusive of sex as a deciding factor and therefore prohibited. I can't imagine this comes as a surprise, given the legal and social evolution we are experiencing. But, it does reinforce the notion that employment decisions need to be based on objective, non-prohibited criteria. These decisions include hiring, not only firing, demotions, or promotions. The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney. All information contained in links are the property of the linked site. - [2020 supreme court decision](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/2020-supreme-court-decision), - [civil rights](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/civil-rights), - [employment law](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/employment-law), - [equal rights](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/equal-rights), - [Civil rights act](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/civil-rights-act), - [supreme court](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/tag/supreme-court) ![Dan Gallatin](https://www.gallatin-law.com/hubfs/assets-mjfw/site%20images/Dans-Desk.jpg) ## [Dan Gallatin](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/author/dan-gallatin) Dan is a lifelong resident of Minnesota. Born in St. Paul, Dan spent many of his formative years growing up there before moving to White Bear Lake. After graduating from White Bear Lake, Dan spent four glorious years at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, earning a degree in two majors. Dan worked as a Senior Investigator at the Minnesota Department of Commerce for several years after graduating from college. During his final years Dan attended William Mitchell College of Law while still working full-time. During this exhausting 3 ½ year period Dan honed his skills in becoming an efficient, to-the-point legal practitioner. While at Madison Dan met his wife, Tonya, and together they moved to Minnesota to plant their roots. Dan and Tonya have two amazing, unique children and reside in Hugo. ### CONNECT WITH ME - ## Related Posts [05/04/2016 Bernard v. State of Minnesota The case of Bernard v. State of Minnesota was argued before the United States Supreme Court last week. The issue is whether the State of Minnesota's… Read Post ](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/bernard-v-state-of-minnesota) [![United States Supreme Court Opinions: What They Are, and Are Not](https://www.gallatin-law.com/hubfs/Canva%20images/Canva%20Design%20DAFFFyrinRI.png) 06/30/2022 United States Supreme Court Opinions: What They Are, and Are Not Remember the opinion in Dobbs, et al. vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al? Almost certainly you do because it reversed Roe v. Wade. Now… Read Post ](https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/united-states-supreme-court-opinions-what-they-are-and-are-not) ### Subscribe Here! ```json { "@context" : "https://schema.org", "@type" : "BlogPosting", "author" : { "@type" : "Person", "name" : "Dan Gallatin", "url" : "https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/author/dan-gallatin" }, "dateModified" : "2020-08-21T17:15:21.936Z", "datePublished" : "2020-06-17T05:00:00.000Z", "headline" : "Civil Rights: A Supreme Court Clarification", "mainEntityOfPage" : { "@id" : "https://www.gallatin-law.com/blog/civil-rights-a-supreme-court-clarification", "@type" : "WebPage" }, "publisher" : { "@type" : "Organization", "logo" : { "@type" : "ImageObject", "url" : "https://www.gallatin-law.com/hubfs/logos/Gallatin-Logo-654x84.png" }, "name" : "Gallatin Law, PLLC" } } ```