How Transgender Discrimination Cases Affect Straight Employees

There's a case in front of the Supreme Court right now that will answer whether employers may discriminate against transgender workers. The orange one's administration says employers should be able to discriminate against trans people. If you think that case won't affect you because you're straight or not transgender, think again.

When I was starting out in law practice, a judge decided that women were prohibited from appearing in his court in pants. There was an outcry, of course, and the judge had to reverse course. I didn't wear anything but pants in court for years after that, and still mostly wear pants. The Department of Justice has supported the funeral home owner in the transgender discrimination case, and that owner has specifically stated that he would fire any woman who refused to wear a skirt to work. The DOJ thinks that's just fine and dandy.

Transgender discrimination is part of sex discrimination, and that's why some courts have said its illegal. The theory is that trans people don't meet gender stereotypes of what a man or woman should look like, dress like and behave like, and that if they were another gender they wouldn't have any issues.

These cases impact more than just trans employees because they affect any worker that doesn't fit in with sexual stereotypes. A woman that wants to wear pants, a man that doesn't like football, a woman that drinks beer and watches sports with the guys, a man that enjoys sewing, a woman who drives a muscle car, a man who wears pink clothes, the list can go on and on of behaviors and appearances that might not meet a boss's expectations of what a man or woman should be.

If you look back at other discrimination cases, you can see that they had a positive impact on others outside their protected class. Sex discrimination cases involving height and weight requirements for police and fire allowed smaller men to choose those professions as well as women. Disability discrimination cases involving wheelchair access also allows parents with strollers easier access to buildings. By eliminating arbitrary restrictions on employment and accessibility, we make things better for many people.

So if you aren't typical of your gender, if you don't fall into 100% of what people traditionally think your gender should be (and isn't that most of us in some way?), or if you just want to wear pants or pink to work, then you should be rooting for the trans workers who are fighting for legal protections against discrimination. Let's not go back to the bad old days of strict gender roles in society.

ENDA (Banning Sexual Orientation Discrimination) Passes In Senate What It Will Mean If It Becomes Law

ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the Senate just passed it. I wouldn't get too excited yet, because unless Republicans lose their majority in the House in the midterm elections we aren't likely to see this become law anytime soon. Still, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss what the law will do (and what it won't do) if passed in the House and signed into law.

Read my article in AOL Jobs to find out what ENDA will do if it becomes law, and what it won't do, despite what detractors are saying.

Transgendered Employees Are Protected Against Discrimination

The EEOC, in a landmark decision, has declared that Title VII protects transgendered employees under its prohibition against sex discrimination. This ruling isn't too surprising considering that gender stereotyping has long been considered sex discrimination. Here's what EEOC said:

That Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination proscribes gender discrimination, and not just discrimination on the basis of biological sex, is important. If Title VII proscribed only discrimination on the basis of biological sex, the only prohibited gender-based disparate treatment would be when an employer prefers a man over a woman, or vice versa. But the statute’s protections sweep far broader than that, in part because the term “gender” encompasses not only a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity. 

EEOC went on to say that sexual stereotyping isn't the only way that transgendered discrimination can be illegal:

Although most courts have found protection for transgender people under Title VII under a theory of gender stereotyping, evidence of gender stereotyping is simply one means of proving sex discrimination. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex whether motivated by hostility,11 by a desire to protect people of a certain gender,12 by assumptions that disadvantage men,13 by gender stereotypes,14 or by the desire to accommodate other people’s prejudices or discomfort.15 While evidence that an employer has acted based on stereotypes about how men or women should act is certainly one means of demonstrating disparate treatment based on sex, “sex stereotyping” is not itself an independent cause of action.

EEOC went on to give examples of how a transgendered individual might prove sex discrimination:

For example, Complainant could establish a case of sex discrimination under a theory of gender stereotyping by showing that she did not get the job as an NIBIN ballistics technician at Walnut Creek because the employer believed that biological men should consistently present as men and wear male clothing. Alternatively, if Complainant can prove that the reason that she did not get the job at Walnut Creek is that the Director was willing to hire her when he thought she was a man, but was not willing to hire her once he found out that she was now a woman—she will have proven that the Director discriminated on the basis of sex. Under this theory, there would actually be no need, for purposes of establishing coverage under Title VII, for Complainant to compile any evidence that the Director was engaging in gender stereotyping.

Here's the part I found the most interesting, and I thought the analysis was spot-on. EEOC compared discrimination against transgendered employees to religious discrimination against a convert:

Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute. Discrimination “because of religion” easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion.

Applying Title VII in this manner does not create a new “class” of people covered under Title VII—for example, the “class” of people who have converted from Islam to Christianity or from Christianity to Judaism. Rather, it would simply be the result of applying the plain language of a statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion to practical situations in which such characteristics are unlawfully taken into account.

What does this all mean? How does it affect the rights of transgendered employees? EEOC is not a court and it isn't Congress, so it can't make law. The opinion gives us a glimpse as to how EEOC will view charges of discrimination brought by transgendered employees. That means transgendered employees will have an easier time convincing EEOC to find "cause" for their charges of discrimination. But that doesn't mean they necessarily win.

Once EEOC finds cause (or that they're unable to determine whether or not cause exists), the employee will still have to sue if the employer doesn't settle. That means the courts could decide differently than EEOC. It happens all the time that courts disagree with EEOC's world view.

This decision is a major step in the right direction. The only way to be sure of an outcome will be if Congress decides to clarify Title VII one way or the other, or if the Supreme Court rules on this issue. In the meantime, for now we can assume that transgendered employees have some rights under Title VII.