Is Transgender Discrimination Prohibited by Federal Law?

In 2013, then 52-year-old Aimee Stephens was contemplating sending her employer a letter. Having spent her entire life knowing that she was a transgender woman, she wanted to start dressing that way at work. After six years of positive reviews and performance, she thought that it would not be an issue. But, after finally telling her boss, she was fired.

Like any employee facing discrimination, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). From there, it bounced back and forth between district courts and the court of appeals. After the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Stephens, lawyers representing the funeral home where she worked have asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.

Now, five years later, this landmark case has the chance to set precedent for all employment discrimination matters relating to transgender and LGBTQ members of the community. Let’s take a deeper look at this case and its implications.

Federal Discrimination Law

According to Federal Law, discrimination in the workplace is illegal based on protected statuses. Outlined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these characteristics include race, sex, religion, color, and national origin. Many states also have specific laws that relate to employment discrimination. For example, California has the Fair Employment and Housing Act which provides even more protection on top of what is covered by federal law.

However, this does not stop workplace discrimination from happening. In fact, it is very common in the United States.

Total Discrimination Charges Filed with the EEOC

As can be seen above, despite the combination of federal and state laws, employment discrimination happens all the time. When this happens, employees file a claim with the EEOC or the appropriate state agency. After undergoing an investigation, the employee is then issued a Right to Sue Notice which allows them to take legal action against their employers.

The Case of Aimee Stephens

While it’s true that no two discrimination cases are exactly alike, this case has especially important implications. The central theme behind this case is whether or not sex and gender identity are different in the eyes of the law. Since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes no mention of gender at all, the law is left open to interpretation.

Transgender rights activists argue a broad interpretation of Title VII, saying that although it is not explicitly stated, it is included. This is exactly how the 6th Circuit Court interpreted the law, ruling in Stephens favor.

However, the other side argues a stricter interpretation of the law. They say that there is a difference between sex and gender identity and at least 16 other states have filed briefs supporting this position. Their central argument is that sex is biological whereas gender is a social or cultural role that is assigned within a society. Coupled with the fact that it is not specifically mentioned in Title VII and that Congress has made the distinction clear in several other instances, sex and gender should not maintain the same protections. Moreover, they also point to a statement made by current Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year which stated that the Justice Department would not consider transgender individuals protected under federal civil rights laws.

Going to the Supreme Court

According to the Los Angeles discrimination lawyers at Mathew & George, this represents a watershed moment for transgender employment rights in the United States. “The ruling here could set the legal precedent for all future discrimination cases concerning transgender citizens. Especially on the eve of the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, his appointment could swing the Court’s decision.”

It is still unclear if the case is headed to the Supreme court. But many activists are worried about what might happen. Under the Obama administration, both the EEOC and DOJ took the position that gender identity was protected under sex discrimination laws. But now, under a new administration and with a new Supreme Court nominee, that could all change, putting the case of Aimee Stephens and those like her in jeopardy.