Avoid Being the Test Case for Gender Identity Discrimination

PC_2012-13Annual_510x510-300dpi-crowd walkingA former sales associate at Saks Fifth Avenue’s Houston, Texas store recently filed suit in federal court claiming discrimination based on her gender identity.  Leyth Jamal is a transgender individual who identifies as a woman.  She claims that during her employment with Sak’s, managers persistently harassed her about her gender identity.  Specifically, Jamal claims that management required her to use the men’s restroom, instructed her not to wear makeup or feminine clothing, and referred to her using male pronouns.  Jamal filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and was terminated 10 days later.

Counsel for Saks moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Jamal’s claim lacks legal foundation because transgender individuals are not protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  While it is true that gender identity and expression is not a protected class under Title VII, transgender employees may still bring a claim for discrimination based on gender stereotyping.  In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 240 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that discrimination based on an employee’s nonconformity with gender norms and stereotypes is a form of sex discrimination.

Saks’ Motion to Dismiss has sparked a firestorm.  The EEOC and U.S. Attorney General’s Office have filed briefs in support of Jamal’s lawsuit.

The U.S. Attorney General’s involvement in this Texas lawsuit is historic, but not surprising since it comes on the heels of the Justice Department’s December 15, 2014 Memorandum discussed by my colleague, John Shea, in a recent blog post. 

Congress may follow suit and revive the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”).  Until then, employers would be wise to treat transgender employees as if they are protected under the relevant discrimination laws.  This applies equally to out of state employers, who may not be required to comply with state laws that expressly protect such persons from discrimination, in light of how Title VII is being broadly interpreted.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page