Connect with us

National

HISTORIC: EEOC ruling protects trans workers from discrimination

Agency interprets Title VII to protect workers against gender identity discrimination

Published

on

In a historic ruling, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined that job bias against employees on the basis of gender identity amounts to sex discrimination under existing law.

The determination came about as part of the resolution of a case filed by the Transgender Law Center on behalf of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who allegedly was denied a job as a ballistics technician at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’s laboratory in Walnut Creek, Calif., after she announced she was transitioning from male to female. The decision, made unanimously by the commission on a 5-0 vote, was made public Monday evening.

“[W]e conclude that intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because the person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination ‘based on … sex,’ and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII,” the decision states.

EEOC is the federal agency that interprets and enforces federal non-discrimination laws. Its decision on transgender workers applies to both public and private employers throughout the United States, including in the 34 states where non-discrimination laws based on gender identity don’t exist.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Various courts have determined that transgender workers are protected against discrimination on the basis of this statute, but the decision on Monday marks the first time the EEOC has decided the law protects transgender workers.

Masen Davis, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, said the significance of the decision is “hard to overstate.”

“Transgender people already face tremendous rates of discrimination and unemployment,” Davis said. “The decision today ensures that every transgender person in the United States will have legal recourse to employment discrimination, and with it a way to safeguard their access to vital employment benefits such as health insurance and retirement savings plans.”

EEOC made the decision after the Obama administration was criticized by many in the LGBT community for deciding at this time against issuing an executive order requiring federal contractors to have non-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The EEOC decision could provide a path to provide transgender workers seeking a remedy against discrimination in lieu of the executive order.

While still presenting as male, Macy, a veteran and former police detective, was told in January 2011 she would receive a position she wanted at the Walnut Creek crime laboratory. As evidence of her impeding hire, Aspen of DC, the contractor responsible for filling the position, contacted her to begin the necessary paperwork and said an investigator was performing a background check.

But after informing the contractor in March 2011 that she would transition from male to female, Macy received an email from the contractor stating that the position, due to federal budget constraints, had been cut. Later, she was told someone else was awarded the position.

Believing she had faced job discrimination, Macy on June 13 filed a formal complaint with the EO for the agency, noting “gender identity” and “sex stereotyping” as the basis of her complaint. After some back-and-forth between Macy and the agency over whether she could seek relief under Title VII, Macy appealed the case in December to EEOC, which determined the law offers her protection as well as protection to other transgender workers.

In a statement, Macy thanked the Transgender Law Center for its support and said she was “proud” to be part of the groundbreaking decision.

“Although the discrimination I experienced was painful both personally and financially, and led to the loss of my family’s home to foreclosure, I’m proud to be a part of this groundbreaking decision confirming that our nation’s employment discrimination laws protect all Americans, including transgender people,” Macy said. “I’m grateful for the help of Transgender Law Center, which believed in me from the start and helped guide me through this process. No one should be denied a job just for being who they are.”

Still, the case isn’t yet over for Macy. The case has been remanded to ATF for further processing in light of the decision. If Macy requests a final decision without a hearing, the agency must render a decision within 60 days of receipt of her request.

EEOC draws on previous decisions that courts have made on whether Title VII provides protections to workers who face discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Among them is the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Glenn v. Brumby, in which plaintiff Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who was fired from her position as proofreader from the Georgia General Assembly in 2007 filed a lawsuit after she announced she would transition from male to female. The court ruled that an individual “cannot be punished because of his or her perceived gender-nonconformity” and these protections must be afforded to transgender people.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, called the decision a “major victory” and said it would further the case of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would bar companies from discrimination against LGBT employees, and the sought-after executive order for federal contractors.

“As many as 90 percent of trans people still face tremendous discrimination in employment according to our National Discrimination Survey, and it will help so much that the EEOC agrees with what more and more courts have been saying — discriminating against trans people because of their sex, or their perceived sex, or what an employer thinks about their sex is clearly sex discrimination, illegal and wrong,” Keisling said.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said the decision expands upon Executive Order 11246, the existing directive prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of gender.

“We call on Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and her staff to issue new guidance for federal contractors to inform them that they cannot discriminate against transgender Americans while profiting from taxpayer-funded contracts,” Almeida said.

However, Almeida said Solis won’t have the authority to expand these protections to gay and lesbian Americans working for federal contractors until Obama “corrects the mistake announced by White House staff a few weeks ago” and issues an executive order for all LGBT workers at these companies.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular