Search form

Title VII Prohibits Discrimination against Transgender Workers, EEOC Decides

By Michelle E. Phillips
  • April 26, 2012

Transgender discrimination is discrimination on the basis of “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has decided in an historic opinion.  Macy v. Holder, Appeal No. 0120120821 (Apr. 20, 2012).

The case arose out of a dispute between job applicant Mia Macy and the federal agency that would have been her employer, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATFE”).  When Macy applied for a job, she presented as male.  Shortly thereafter, Macy informed ATFE that she was transitioning from male to female.  Subsequently, ATFE informed Macy that another applicant had been hired because that applicant was farther along in the background check process.  Macy filed a complaint against ATFE with the EEOC alleging that the reasons proffered for not hiring her were pretextual and that the true reason was because of her “sex, gender identity (transgender woman) and on the basis of sex stereotyping.”

The EEOC agreed with Macy.  Relying heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), and its progeny, the EEOC held that Title VII bars discrimination not only on the basis of biological sex, but because of gender stereotyping, as well.  See also Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 572 (6th Cir. 2004); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1202 (9th Cir. 2000); but see Etsitty v. Utah Trans. Auth., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12634, at *4-5 (D. Utah June 24, 2005) (Price Waterhouse is inapplicable to transsexuals), aff’d on other grounds, 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007).  

The EEOC then reasoned that Macy could establish a viable sex discrimination claim on the ground that ATFE believed that biological men should present as men and wear male clothing, or, alternatively, that ATFE was willing to hire a man, but not a woman.  Either way, the EEOC concluded, transgender discrimination is discrimination “based on . . . sex” and violates Title VII.

* * *

This case has far-reaching implications for employers, yet the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII is not necessarily dispositive.  If a federal court determines that Congress in Title VII did not intend to include transgender bias within its prohibition on sex discrimination, then the EEOC’s interpretation will be rejected.  See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984).  Alternatively, if a court determines that Title VII is silent or ambiguous on this issue, it will defer to the EEOC’s interpretation if it is a “permissible construction of the statute.”  Id. at 843.  If the EEOC’s interpretation is impermissible, however, the court will decide the issue without regard for the EEOC’s opinion.

Macy v. Holder signals a turning point in employment discrimination law on a national level.  The EEOC undoubtedly will view any allegation of transgender discrimination as unlawful sex discrimination in negotiations with employers and in agency-sponsored litigation.  Employers should consider the following best practices: 

 

  1. Train all employees on gender identity and gender expression and sexual stereotyping issues in the workplace;  
  2. Where applicable, revise anti-harassment policies to include gender identity and expression as a protected classification; and 
  3. Audit hiring, promotion, and termination practices to ensure that no personnel activity has an adverse impact on transgender employees.

 

In additional to federal law, employers also should continue to be mindful of changes in state and local fair employment practice laws that may address this issue. Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to provide additional information, answer questions, provide training, and assist employers in their efforts to comply with this newest interpretation of Title VII.

©2012 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 17, 2016

What Employers Need to Know About the New York City Pregnancy Accommodation Enforcement Guidance

May 17, 2016

The New York City Commission on Human Rights has released enforcement guidance on the New York City Pregnant Workers Fairness Act identifying five categories of potential violations and emphasizing the need to engage in cooperative dialogue to reach accommodation. The Act, passed in 2013 and codified in the New York City Human Rights Law... Read More

May 5, 2016

Department of Justice Warns Governor that North Carolina LGBT Law is Unlawful

May 5, 2016

North Carolina’s law restricting access to restrooms based on an individual’s sex assigned at birth and not based on an individual’s consistent gender identity violates both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the United States Department of Justice has said in a letter to... Read More

May 4, 2016

EEOC Stresses Title VII Bars Discrimination against Transgender Workers, Including Regarding Bathroom Access

May 4, 2016

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s new fact sheet focuses on bathroom access and reminds employers that discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and contrary state law (such as North Carolina’s HB-2, Mississippi’s HB 1523, and Oxford,... Read More

Related Practices