Macy v. Holder: Title VII and Workplace Justice for Transgender Employees
June 21, 2012Student Blogs ArticleOn May 21st, a landmark EEOC ruling went into effect, applying on a national level what a number of federal courts have already held: transgender people are covered by a federal prohibition on sex-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On a practical level, this decision will have a broad impact. It means that in every single state, employers—both public and private, who have businesses with 15 people or more—may not discriminate against transgender employees. If they do, those employees now have a legal remedy that did not previously exist nation-wide.
According to the 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, a staggering 90% of respondents have experienced some form of discrimination, mistreatment or harassment at work specifically because of their gender identity or expressions. Given the harsh legal and social landscape to which they are subjected, that number is unfortunately not surprising. Only 16 states and Washington D.C. have anti-discrimination statutes that include gender identity, there is no federal law explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and the unemployment rate among transgender people is double the national average. For transgender people of color, the rate is four times as high. Combine these issues with the disproportionately high levels of poverty, homelessness, and other forms of widespread marginalization that transgender and gender non-conforming people experience—particularly in low-income communities, communities of color, and immigrant communities—and it becomes clear how badly protective measures are needed and how much is still left to be done.
In the case that established this EEOC decision, Mia Macy was denied a job solely because of her gender identity. Ms. Macy is both a veteran and former police detective. She was highly qualified to be a ballistics officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and, because of her unique training, was told after an initial phone interview that she was virtually guaranteed a job with ATF, as long as she cleared a routine background check. A few months later, after Ms. Macy disclosed to her future employer that she planned to transition from male to female, she received an e-mail stating that the position was no longer available due to funding cuts. In reality, ATF hired another candidate because they were not comfortable with Ms. Macy’s transition.
The EEOC held that such actions are discriminatory and illegal by relying on the 1989 Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and a number of other federal cases applying Price Waterhouse to transgender employees. In Price Waterhouse, the plaintiff, Ms. Hopkins (who is not transgender), was denied a promotion because her employer believed that she was not feminine enough – going so far as to recommend that if she wanted to be promoted, she should wear makeup and jewelry or perhaps take a “course in charm school.” The Court ruled that Title VII not only protects people who are explicitly discriminated against in employment because of their sex, but also those, like Ms. Hopkins, who are discriminated against because they do not conform to certain gender stereotypes (i.e. women who are not stereotypically feminine or men who are not stereotypically masculine). In a number of cases since then, federal courts, and now the EEOC, have applied this reasoning to transgender employees, even finding that any form of discrimination against transgender employees is per se sex discrimination. That was the holding in Schroer v. Billington, a 2008 U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia case, as well as Glenn v. Brumby, a very recent 11th circuit case involving a transgender woman who was fired because her employer felt that her transition was “unnatural” and would make others in the office feel uncomfortable.
Despite this landmark decision, there is still much work left to be done to ensure full workplace safety for transgender and gender non-conforming people. Although the EEOC ruling is groundbreaking and will undoubtedly impact employee rights and employer policies moving forward, advocates must (and do) still continue to push for an inclusive federal bill like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). This is necessary for a number of reasons, not least of which is that federal courts are not strictly bound by EEOC decisions and the Supreme Court could overturn this particular interpretation of sex-discrimination under Title VII if lower courts disagree. Also, this decision does not directly impact the fact that in many states it is still legal to fire an employee because of their sexual orientation.
Nevertheless, this case is an important and historic step in the right direction. It adds to what is a clear, growing momentum towards much-needed acceptance and legal protection for transgender and gender non-conforming people in the United States and abroad.
You may also like
1 comment
- November 2024
- October 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
What do you do when your city council denies your equal rights, as in the case of Jacksonville, FL? http://www.news4jax.com/news/Council-votes-against-anti-discrimination-bill-10-9/-/475880/16132658/-/kdjrf0/-/index.html