EEOC Recognizes Transgender Discrimination Claims

07 May 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Does federal law prohibit discrimination against transgender employees? Some federal courts have ruled that the answer is no. However, an EEOC decision issued in April 2012 has found that such a prohibition exists.

The following allegations were made: The complainant, named Macy, was an employee of the ATF. Macy spoke to her director about an open position. At this time, Macy was presenting as a male. The director told Macy she would get the position provided her background check was clear. However, days after disclosing that she was transitioning from male to female and that she would have a new name and gender, she was informed that, due to budgetary constraints, the position was no longer available. In actuality, the position had been given to another person. Macy filed an administrative complaint claiming transgender discrimination.

Macy’s claim eventually reached the EEOC. The issue was whether federal law — specifically Title VII — prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals. Many federal courts, as the EEOC recognized, had held that Title VII did not protect employees from discrimination based upon their status as transgender individuals. Rather, those courts generally required plaintiffs to show that they were discriminated against for failing to conform to gender stereotypes — for example, a woman being passed over for promotion for failing to act in a sufficiently “feminine” manner.

The EEOC rejected this distinction. It concluded a transgender person could prevail by showing that the employer discriminated against him or her for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. However, unlike many courts that have considered the issue, the EEOC concluded that a person also may prevail simply by showing that he or she was discriminated against based upon his or her status as a transgender individual. Both forms of discrimination fall within the definition of discrimination based on sex.

How should employers react to this decision? While courts are not required to follow the EEOC’s decision, it may signal an increasing acceptance of transgender discrimination claims. Furthermore, many states and municipalities already prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals. Therefore, the prudent approach is for employers to ensure that their policies prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals (as many employers already have) and train their employees accordingly.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA