News
DOJ slammed for ducking on trans exclusion in ADA
Obama administration says resolution to case based on Title VII the right approach
The Justice Department ducked on whether the trans exclusion in ADA is unconstitutional. (Photo by Mbiama via Wikimedia Commons)
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders took the Justice Department to task in a statement last week for declining to weigh in on the explicit transgender exclusion written into the 1990 law.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public accommodations and other areas, but the law explicitly states it doesn’t include “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism [and] gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments or other sexual behavior disorders.”
Jennifer Levi, director of GLAD’s trans rights project, said the Justice Department’s decision to avoid the trans exclusion in a statement of interest filed on July 21 is “surprising and disappointing.”
“Given the rank animus behind it, the exclusion serves to marginalize and stigmatize a minority group that the DOJ has recognized needs and deserves legal protections,” Levi said.
Kate Lynn Blatt, a transgender employee at the hunter gear Cabela’s Retail, filed a discrimination claim against her employer under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the grounds the store discriminated against her based on her sex; and the ADA, on the basis the store refused to reasonably accommodate her by denying her use of a restroom consistent with her gender identity and the ability to wear a nametag with her correct name. Blair also endured harassment from supervisors and co-workers and was abruptly terminated in 2007.
In a four-page statement of interest signed by trial attorney Emily Nestler, the Justice Department asks the court to hold off on determining the constitutionality of ADA’s trans exclusion until the challenge on the basis of Title VII is resolved.
“The United States respectfully requests that the Court defer ruling upon Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the GID Exclusion until after the Title VII claims are resolved, as disposition of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims could resolve this case without the need to reach the constitutionality of the GID Exclusion,” the filing says. “Should the Court later determine that the constitutional issue cannot be avoided, the United States respectfully reserves the right to intervene or file a supplemental statement of interest at that time.”
In 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined in the case of Macy v. Holder the gender provision under Title VII applies to workplace discrimination against people for being transgender. In a statement in December, the Justice Department followed suit, saying the U.S. government would no longer deny the law covers gender-identity discrimination.
Levi added the filing has two silver linings: the reassertion that Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination against transgender people and language that enables the Justice Department to revisit the trans exclusion at a later time.
“While we acknowledge these bright spots, the problem created by the ADA exclusion remains,” Levi said. “Congress excluded transgender people from the protections of the ADA because of the stigma associated with gender dysphoria. As long as the transgender exclusion remains within the law, the ADA fails in its promise to create a level playing field in employment for all people capable of doing the job.”
The U.S. Justice Department deferred to its filing in the case in response to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on GLAD’s criticism.
Representing Blatt is Sidney Gold, Neelima Vanguri and Brian Farrell of the Philadelphia-based Sidney L. Gold & Associates. Along with Law Professor Kevin Barry of Quinnipiac University, GLAD and other trans rights groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in January arguing by maintaining the trans exclusion, the ADA perpetrates the kind of discrimination it seeks to dismantle.
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Risking it all for love during World War II
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
