Case Examines the Law Regarding Transgender Discrimination

By

A lawsuit that is being called a very significant case by law experts is going to trial this week in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The case involves transgender job bias allegations against the Library of Congress and has potentially major implications for federal anti-discrimination policy.

The National Law Journal reported that retired, decorated Army Colonel Diane Schroer will face off against the library in Schroer v. Billington, No. 05-1090, with U.S. District Judge James Robertson presiding.

Schroer alleges that the library violated the ban on sex discrimination in employment practices that is mandated by federal law. However, the case greatly revolves around whether or not the ban extends to transgender people.

In the lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Schroer claims that the library rescinded a job offer that had been extended to her. Schroer had allegedly accepted the position, but the job offer was withdrawn after she disclosed to the potential supervisor that she was in the process of transitioning from a male to a female.

Legal experts say that because the lawsuit has been filed against the federal government, the outcome could impact federal employment policy. It is also significant, according to employment discrimination scholar Arthur Leonard of New York Law School, that the case addresses transgender people.

The lawsuit addresses an emerging issue of whether or not transgender people are protected by the federal law's provisions against sex discrimination.

Some states have already addressed the issue of workplace discrimination based on gender identity. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have passed laws banning this type of discrimination.

Federal legislators have been slower to act on the issue; until recently, federal courts have ruled that there is no protection from discrimination based on gender identity under the major federal job bias law.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that transgender people may be protected under federal law in some cases when they are discriminated against because they do not conform to gender stereotypes.

Judge Robertson previously denied a motion by the federal government to dismiss the Schroer lawsuit. Robertson's decision cleared the way for Schroer to pursue her sex stereotyping claim against the library. However, Robertson did not rule either way as to whether or not gender identity discrimination violates the federal job bias law.

Schroer served 25 years in the U.S. Army and headed a classified national security operation while serving as an Airborne ranger, qualified Special Forces officer. She applied for, was offered, and accepted a position as the senior terrorism research analyst at the Library of Congress.

According to the lawsuit, Schroer met with her future supervisor and explained that she was undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria, which is the clinical term used when a person is transgender. She says that she explained to her future boss that she would be using a name that is traditionally feminine, rather than her given name, David. She also stated that she would report to work dressed in clothing typically worn by females, but would not have sexual reassignment surgery for at least a year.

One day after this meeting with the supervisor and explaining her situation, Schroer says that the job offer was withdrawn.

Schroer is represented by lawyer Sharon M. McGowan of the ACLU. McGowan argues that discriminatory intent is evidenced by admissions of the supervisor, statements and actions of the colleagues whom the supervisor consulted about whether to rescind the job offer, and e-mails and documents created at the time of the decision.

District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor represents the library in the case. Although Taylor is well aware of Robertson's ruling on the sex stereotyping claim, he begs to differ and argues that transsexuals are not a protected class under federal law. Taylor also says that gender identity disorder is not the same thing as a failure to conform to sex stereotypes.

The government maintains that there was no discrimination. Taylor says that the job offer was rescinded because, among other concerns, Schroer would have to undergo a lengthy security check and might have been unable to maintain high-level military intelligence contacts. The library also says that there were concerns that Schroer might not be viewed as credible by members of Congress.

Both sides are headed to court to argue the case on August 27.


» Back to Injury Articles

Copyright © 2011 TotalInjury, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Submit ZIP Code
Or, call us anytime. Available 24/7: 855-694-9176

Some bumps and bruises are a natural part of life. But when your pain is caused by reckless behavior, abusive behavior or negligent practices, Total Injury is there.

If you were injured as a result of someone’s negligence or intentional actions against you, you may have the right to compensation for any injury, damage or loss caused by the person at fault. About Us »

Attorneys: We help clients find you! Call 877-349-1307

PAID ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT. THIS WEB SITE IS A GROUP ADVERTISEMENT AND THE PARTICIPATING ATTORNEYS ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY PAY AN ADVERTISING FEE. It is not a lawyer referral service or prepaid legal services plan. Total Injury is not a law firm. Your request for contact will be forwarded to the local lawyer who has paid to advertise in the ZIP code you provide. Total Injury does not endorse or recommend any lawyer or law firm who participates in the network nor does it analyze a person's legal situation when determining which participating lawyers receive a person's inquiry. It does not make any representation and has not made any judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating lawyer. The information contained herein is not legal advice. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Any information you submit to Total Injury does not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be protected by attorney-client privilege. Do not use the form to submit confidential, time-sensitive, or privileged information. All photos are of models and do not depict clients. All case evaluations are performed by participating attorneys. An attorney responsible for the content of this Site is Kevin W. Chern, Esq., licensed in Illinois with offices at 25 East Washington, Suite 400, Chicago, Illinois 60602. To see the attorney in your area who is responsible for this advertisement, please click here.

FLORIDA ONLY: Total Injury is considered a lawyer referral service in the state of Florida under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. By all other standards, Total Injury is a group advertisement and not a lawyer referral service.

If you live in Mississippi, Missouri, New York or Wyoming, please click here for additional information.