Court rules trans discrimination is sex discrimination

“In each of these foundational cases, the court concluded that discriminatory state action could not stand on the basis of gender stereotypes. The court’s more recent cases reiterate that the Equal Protection Clause does not tolerate gender stereotypes. Accordingly, governmental acts based upon gender stereotypes – which presume that men and women’s appearance and behavior will be determined by their sex – must be subjected to heightened scrutiny because they embody ‘the very stereotype the law condemns.’

“We conclude that a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity.”

The quote above is from the recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ Glenn v. Brumby decision. The federal appeals court in the 3-0 decision ruled that discrimination against trans people based on gender stereotyping is sex discrimination. The significance of this decision for the population of transgender, transsexual and gender nonconforming people in the United States – especially for the southern states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals – can’t be understated.

What occurred was this: Vandy Beth Glenn was fired from her job as a legislative editor for Georgia’s General Assembly four years ago when she began her transition from male to female. A supervisor in her chain of command fired her because of her transition. From the court ruling:

“In 2006, Glenn informed her direct supervisor, Beth Yinger, that she was a transsexual and was in the process of becoming a woman. On Halloween in 2006, when [Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC)] employees were permitted to come to work wearing costumes, Glenn came to work presenting as a woman. When Sewell Brumby, head of the office in which Glenn worked, saw her, he told her that her appearance was not appropriate and asked her to leave the office. Brumby deemed her appearance inappropriate ‘[b]ecause he was a man dressed as a woman and made up as a woman.’ Brumby stated that ‘it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing,’ and that a male in women’s clothing is ‘unnatural.’ Following this incident, Brumby met with Yinger to discuss Glenn’s appearance on Halloween of 2006 and was informed by Yinger that Glenn intended to undergo a gender transition.

“In the fall of 2007, Glenn informed Yinger that she was ready to proceed with gender transition and would begin coming to work as a woman and was also changing her legal name. Yinger notified Brumby, who subsequently terminated Glenn because ‘Glenn’s intended gender transition was inappropriate, that it would be disruptive, that some people would view it as a moral issue, and that it would make Glenn’s coworkers uncomfortable.’”

So, even though some in American society find the transsexuals’ transitions to be a “moral issue,” and in American society find that gender expression that doesn’t conform to societal sex and gender norms to be “inappropriate,” “unsettling” or “disruptive,” according to the 11th Circuit those aren’t sufficient reasons to fire a transsexual who does his, hers, or hir job satisfactorily. The Equal Protection Clause applies to trans people of all stripes – just as it applies to all in the United States.

The 11th Circuit relied in part upon precedents interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Some federal courts have held that discrimination against trans people in the workplace constitutes sex/gender based discrimination, which is the position that the Obama administration previously embraced when it chose not to challenge the Schroer v. Library of Congress discrimination case – the case where Diane Schroer had a job offer withdrawn by the Library of Congress when she told them she was going to transition in the workplace.

So, as trans people are explicitly covered under the 14th Amendment in this ruling, it seems clear to me that no doubt soon trans people will be explicitly covered under Title VII.

This one appeals court circuit ruling appears to be following a trend of federal court rulings, finding that when one discriminates in the workplace against trans people because they don’t conform to societal gender stereotypes – to societal sex and gender norms – it’s unlawful sex discrimination.

To my way of thinking, this is a good thing.