The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision for Bostock, covering all three cases, on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protections do apply to gay and transgender persons.

While the case was in progress, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a non-binding memo in 2015 that it would treat sexual orientation as covered by Title VII; this aligned with a prior non-binding memo from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that it would also treat sexual orientation as protected under Title VII should such cases be presented to them.

Trump took steps to undo many actions previously established by the prior president Barack Obama, including instructing the DOJ to reverse its decision on Title VII protections for sexual orientation.

[10] In its new memo, the DOJ asserted that while significant cultural shifts had occurred since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Congress had not amended the law in any way, and thus rejected that Title VII protected against sexual orientation discrimination as the DOJ had "substantial and unique interest" to follow the letter of the law.

[12][13] In July 2017, the DOJ unexpectedly interceded in the case, arguing in a friend of the court brief that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not explicitly cover sexual-orientation discrimination in the workplace.

The brief argued that the law does not define "sex," and that the common "ordinary" usage protected being biologically female or male.

[22] The full court reversed the prior rulings on a 10–3 vote, and asserted that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation employment discrimination under the category of sex.

[14] In effect, the conclusion held that Zarda's estate could bring Title VII claims against Altitude Express, as the law encompassed discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Zarda's legal representative Gregory Antollino argued that, "If you discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, you necessarily take into account the sex of the employee.

[5] Altitude Express filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case again, arguing, according to the Advocate, that "expanding the law to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation should be done by legislators, not the judiciary.

The petition also did not seek to address the merits of the Zarda case specifically, only focusing on whether Title VII applied as a valid type of discrimination.

[19] In the petition, Zabell argued that the decision made by the 7th and 2nd Circuits "departed from more than 50 years of established precedent" in that it ruled on the scope of protection for LGBT employees under Title VII.

Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, related to whether Title VII protections included transgender individuals.

Arguments also centered on how the word "sex" in Title VII could be interpreted to include sexual orientation, and not strictly gender.

[32] In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

"[33] Gorsuch's decision also alluded to concerns that the judgment may set a sweeping precedent that would force gender equality on traditional practices.

In his dissent, Alito asserted that at the time of the crafting of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 the concepts of sexual orientation and transgender identity would have been unknown, and thus Congress's language should not be implied to cover these facets.

Alito wrote, "Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court's updating of Title VII.

He concluded by acknowledging that Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and law ...