Menu
966 F.Supp.2d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2013); 49 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (N.D. Ga. 2014); 641 F. App'x 883 (11th Cir. 2016) – A transgender auto mechanic in Georgia was fired for falling asleep on the job. She attempted to file her charge of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but was turned away on the grounds that transgender people were not protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act. After retaining this firm, a new charge was filed, although it was two years after the deadline for submission. The Court ruled that she could nonetheless proceed because the Commission had improperly turned her away. However, the District Court dismissed the case because there was a photo of her sleeping on the job. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision and sent it back to the lower court for trial. The appeals court reasoned that there was evidence of supervisor bias, and the Federal Civil Rights Act only requires that discrimination be a motivating factor, not the sole or main reason for termination. The case was confidentially resolved.
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 15-cv-2646 – A transgender call center employee in Arizona was terminated in a company-wide reduction in force. Evidence was obtained showing that she was denied a name change on company records, denied use of the women’s restroom, denied transgender-related health care, and subjected to misgendering and name-calling by co-workers. The case was settled for $115,000. A three-year consent decree provided that the company would not make exclusions in their healthcare benefits plan for medically necessary care based on transgender status, would revise employment policies including a commitment to preventing unlawful sex discrimination, and would provide employee training explaining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sex-stereotypes, gender-identity, and transgender status. This case was co-litigated with EEOC.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, No. 8:14-cv-02421 – A Florida employer near Tampa closed its hearing aid division because of poor sales and terminated its hearing aid salesperson who transitioned on the job. Evidence was obtained suggesting the hearing aid division did not have poor sales and that the employer had expressed unease about her gender transition. The case was settled for $150,000, with a two-year public consent decree requiring training and policy changes. This case was co-litigated with EEOC. The employer was represented by the global law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 4:14-cv-02782 – A transgender retail employee near Houston, Texas was terminated because of a customer complaint. Evidence was obtained that her harassment complaints had been ignored, and that another employee involved in the customer complaint had not been terminated. After national media coverage of Saks’ denial that transgender employees were covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act for sex discrimination, the U.S. Attorney General, the EEOC, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed briefs and the New York Attorney General launched an investigation. The case was confidentially resolved. The company was represented by the global law firms Ogletree Deakins and Sidley Austin LLP.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Kentucky, No. 2:17-cv-00134 – A transgender fulfillment center employee in Kentucky and her husband endured harassment and their complaints were ignored. The company refused their requests for accommodations to help stop the harassment, which escalated in intensity to the point of physical danger. The employees resigned and brought suit against their staffing agency and Amazon. The employers claimed that their claims of harassment were unsubstantiated. The case was confidentially resolved. The employers were represented by the global law firms Morgan Lewis LLP and Littler Mendelson PC.
491 F.Supp.3d 117 (E.D.Va. 2020) - A transgender DMV maintenance crew chief in Virginia was forced to retire in lieu of termination for improper use of the agency credit card. Evidence was obtained that no impropriety had occurred, and that the agency had engaged in harassment, denial of equal protection and denial of freedom of gender expression under the First Amendment to the United States and Virginia Constitutions. The case was confidentially resolved. The employer was represented by the Virginia Attorney General.
United States District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 18-cv-3145 – A transgender cybersecurity expert in Maryland was misgendered, deadnamed, a supervisor told her that she hated transgender people, her attire was criticized, and, after coworker complaints about “having to walk on eggshells” because she asked them to stop misgendering her, she was placed on a performance improvement plan requiring her to stop complaining. She was “laid off” because of her “bad attitude." The matter was confidentially resolved. The employers were represented by the global law firms Venable LLP and Littler Mendelson PC.
13 F.4th 1019 (10th Cir. 2021) – A transgender English literature professor applied for tenure, and the Faculty Senate recommended that it be granted. It was denied at higher levels due to her failure to accept a recommendation to delay her application and because she listed publications that allegedly could not be located. Evidence was obtained that she had timely applied, that her publications were all in order, and her application met all of the criteria required for tenure. She was reinstated with tenure at the rank of full professor and received a settlement of $1.725 million. A portion of this case was co-litigated with the U.S. Department of Justice, and another attorney conducted the trial. The employer was represented by the Oklahoma Attorney General.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-1938v – A transgender computer systems engineer was separated from her employer in a company-wide reduction in force. The employer argued this had no relation to her gender identity, and that her department’s workforce had been reduced by about 10% across the board, involving hundreds of employees. Evidence was obtained that she had negotiated a non-travel accommodation during the time of her gender transition, assumed to be about a year, and that her supervisor had advised that she could not remain in her position without travel because the company had begun to require increased travel for all personnel due to changing market conditions. The company argued that it could not be bound by such an indefinite accommodation, and that she had agreed she could travel by bus or train. An arbitrator ruled in favor of the employee, and the employer moved to overturn the decision because of lack of substantial evidence and legal errors. The case was confidentially resolved. The employer was represented by the global law firm Morgan Lewis.