Jamal v. Saks & Co.

United States District Court

Southern District of Texas

No. 4:14-cv-02782

Leyth O. Jamal, a transgender woman, was hired at a retail store in Houston, Texas. She was subjected to offensive comments about her gender, and denied the use of a gender-conforming restroom. She complained to management, but the hostile work environment continued. On July 2, 2012, a complaint was filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Houston District Office. On July 12, 2012, Ms. Jamal was terminated because she allegedly engaged in an inappropriate conversation. On February 12, 2014, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause on the issue of hostile workplace environment based on her gender. Conciliation failed, and the EEOC issued to Ms. Jamal a notice of her right to sue in court.

A complaint was filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, on September 30, 2014. The complaint alleged violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, and breach of contract based on Saks’ policy prohibiting discrimination based on gender.

Saks filed its answer denying the allegations on December 10, 2014. Saks filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Jamal’s complaint on December 29, 2014, alleging that Ms. Jamal’s complaint invoked protection from discrimination as a transgender person, which it argued is not covered under the Civil Rights Act. It also argued that Texas law does not consider language in an employer policy manual to give rise to a breach of contract.

Saks had previously publicly touted its pro-equality policies, including policies prohibiting transgender discrimination, and had received a high 90% rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy group, took the rare step of HRC Takes Action Against Saks Fifth Avenue for Undermining Equality _ Human Rights Campaign as a result of its public filing of a position that the Civil Rights Act should not cover discrimination against transgender employees.

Ms. Jamal filed a response to Saks’ motion to dismiss her complaint on January 20, 2015. She pointed out that the EEOC had issued a 2012 decision, Macy v. Holder, in which it found that the Civil Rights Act protected employees from discrimination based on transgender status. The law requires that courts defer to the interpretation of an administrative agency tasked with enforcement. In addition, many courts have recognized that older cases denying coverage to transgender people are superseded by U.S. Supreme Court precedent, holding that employees are protected from discrimination based on an employer’s beliefs about gender stereotypes. Lastly, Texas law considers language in an employer policy manual to give rise to breach of contract where, as in Saks’ manual, it is clear, specific, and meaningful.

Three amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs were filed in support of Ms. Jamal, one by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, one by the U.S. Department of Justice, and another by the Human Rights Campaign and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

On January 26, 2015, Saks withdrew its motion to dismiss.

The case has been amicably resolved.

The case was reported by, among others, Time Magazine, the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle, as well as NBC affiliate KPRC, Fox affiliate News 26, and CBS The Insider .

670 Responses to Jamal v. Saks