723 Fed.Appx. 964 (11th Cir. 2018), 17-13801, Bostock v. Clayton County Bd. of Commissioners

• Citation: 723 Fed.Appx. 964
• Opinion Judge: PER CURIAM:
• Party Name: Gerald Lynn BOSTOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant, Clayton County, Defendant-Appellee.
• Attorney: Thomas J. Mew, IV, Timothy Brian Green, Brian J. Sutherland, Buckley Beal, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Jack Reynolds Hancock, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Forest Park, GA, William Hollis Buechner, Jr., Martin B. Heller, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee
• Judge Panel: Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
• Case Date: May 10, 2018
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 964

723 Fed.Appx. 964 (11th Cir. 2018)

Gerald Lynn BOSTOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant,

Clayton County, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-13801

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

May 10, 2018

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-01460-ODE

Thomas J. Mew, IV, Timothy Brian Green, Brian J. Sutherland, Buckley Beal, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jack Reynolds Hancock, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Forest Park, GA, William Hollis Buechner, Jr., Martin B. Heller, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Lynn Bostock appeals the district court’s dismissal of his employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e-2(a)(1), against Clayton County, Georgia, for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Bostock argues that the County discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and gender stereotyping. After a careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

"We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). This circuit has previously held that "[d]ischarge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII." Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979)¹ (per curiam) (emphasis added). And we recently confirmed that Blum remains binding precedent in this circuit. See Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1256 (11th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 557, 199 L.Ed.2d 446 (2017). In Evans, we specifically rejected the argument that Supreme Court precedent in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75, 79, 118...