WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to appeal a federal court ruling awarding transgender veteran Diane Schroer the maximum compensation for the discrimination she suffered after being refused a job with the Library of Congress. The deadline for seeking an appeal was June 30. The American Civil Liberties Union has represented Schroer in her case.

The Obama administration’s decision whether to appeal the final ruling in the case has been closely watched in part because the Bush administration defended the case so vigorously, arguing that transgender Americans are not protected by any existing federal laws. The decision not to appeal the verdict is consistent with the Obama administration’s campaign promises to protect transgender workers against discrimination and his administration’s recent order taking steps to bar gender identity discrimination in federal employment.

“I am grateful that the court took the time to examine the case in detail and come to a fair and unbiased decision. In that same light, I am gratified that the current administration saw this for what it was, a case of sex discrimination focused against transgender people, and recognized that it must end in this country,” said Schroer, an Army Special Forces veteran with 25 years service. “The important signal that the administration’s decision sends to all LGBT individuals gives me renewed hope and restores some of my shaken faith in what our country stands for.”

On April 29, 2009, a federal court awarded Schroer maximum damages of $491,190 for back pay, other financial losses and emotional pain and suffering after finding the Library illegally discriminated against Schroer because of her sex. At trial, Schroer testified that she had applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst and was offered the job. Prior to starting work, she took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and wished to start work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn’t a “good fit” for the Library of Congress.

“We are pleased and relieved that the Obama administration has decided to bring an end not only to years of hard-fought litigation but also to a painful chapter of Ms. Schroer’s extraordinary life,” said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “The administration’s decision not to challenge this important civil rights ruling is a welcome sign that it intends to live up to its commitment to help end transgender discrimination in the workplace.”

The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the Library of Congress on June 2, 2005, charging that the library unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. In an earlier ruling in this case, the court issued a groundbreaking opinion that discriminating against someone who transitions from living as one gender to another is sex discrimination under federal law. In reaching this decision, the court compared the discrimination faced by Schroer to religious-based discrimination, saying, “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.” The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female.

“This case put employers on notice that discrimination against transgender individuals is like any other form of discrimination – counterproductive and against our principles as a nation,” added Schroer. “But this case alone won’t end the rampant discrimination that transgender people face throughout the country. That’s why we need Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that was introduced last week.”

In addition to McGowan, the legal team consisted of Ken Choe, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project, James Esseks, Litigation Director for the ACLU LGBT Project and Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital.

For more information about this case, visit the ACLU website Diane Schroer v. Library of Congress Case Profile.

Vandy Beth Glenn

(Lambda Legal: Atlanta, GA) — The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia today denied the Georgia General Assembly’s motion to dismiss Lambda Legal’s federal lawsuit on behalf of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who was fired from her job as Legislative Editor after she told them she planned to transition from male to female.

Richard W. Story, United States District Judge, writes: “Defendants do not claim that Glenn’s transition would have rendered her unable to do her job nor do they present any government purpose whatsoever for their termination of Plaintiff’s employment… Anticipated reactions of others are not a sufficient basis for discrimination.”

“We are thrilled that Vandy Beth has been granted her day in court and that the Georgia General Assembly can be challenged for violating her constitutional rights,” said Cole Thaler, National Transgender Rights Attorney based in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office in Atlanta. “Senior officials of the Georgia state legislature discriminated when they fired our client simply because her boss didn’t like who she is.”

Glenn worked for two years in the General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel as an editor and proofreader of bill language. She loved her job, but living as male was increasingly painful and distressing for Glenn, who has a longstanding female gender identity. Glenn’s health care providers diagnosed her with Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and agreed that gender transition was necessary for her health and well-being.  In 2007, Glenn informed her immediate supervisor, Beth Yinger, that she planned to proceed with her transition from male to female, and showed Yinger photographs of herself in feminine attire. Yinger passed the information on to her boss, the General Assembly’s Legislative Counsel, Sewell Brumby. After confirming that Glenn intended to transition, Brumby fired her on the spot.

Lambda Legal’s lawsuit, first filed in July 2008, asserted that Glenn’s termination violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantee because it treated her differently due to her nonconformity with sex stereotypes and her medical condition. On October 16, 2008, the Georgia General Assembly filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that her Equal Protection claims were incorrectly applied.  Lambda Legal argued that Glenn’s Equal Protection claims are based on unequal treatment due to her membership in two identifiable groups — people with GID and people who do not conform to sex stereotypes — and, in today’s ruling, the court agreed.

Today’s decision relied in part on Lambda Legal’s landmark case Romer v. Evans  which made clear that prejudice does not justify governmental discrimination.

“I look forward to continuing my case and working to end this type of discrimination. No one should lose their job for no good reason the way I did,” said Lambda Legal client Vandy Beth Glenn.

Cole Thaler

Cole Thaler, Transgender Rights Attorney and Greg Nevins, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office in Atlanta are handling the case. The case is Glenn v. Brumby et. al.

For more information, visit Lambda Legal at: http://www.lambdalegal.org/

WASHINGTON, June 24 — The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund applauds today’s introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would protect against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The measure was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

The Task Force was the first national organization to advocate for federal nondiscrimination protections when it worked with then-U.S. Reps. Bella Abzug and Ed Koch to introduce a sweeping bill in 1974. The Task Force has also played a leading role in ensuring ENDA is explicitly inclusive of transgender people. The Task Force vowed a decade ago to oppose the legislation if it did not include protections based on gender identity. Learn more about the Task Force’s long history working on this issue.

Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund

“Today marks a critical milestone for our community and our country. Introduction of this important legislation signals the beginning of the end of a long-fought battle. For decades, a majority of people in this country have supported protecting their friends, family and neighbors from discrimination. Congress must act, at long last, this year.

“Passage of this critical legislation would help ensure that people are allowed to participate on a level-playing field in the workplace. ENDA reflects our country’s core values of fairness and equality. It is immoral to deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people the ability to earn a livelihood and provide for their families. People should not have to fear losing their job simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“We are pleased that President Obama has expressed support for this legislation and expect the administration to play a role in assisting with its passage in both the House and Senate.”

Although less far-reaching than a previously proposed Human Rights Ordinance, Executive Order No. 1-2009 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in any municipal employment. The statement of administrative policy also directs departments and other internal operations of City government to:

• Update the City’s Equal Employment Opportunity policy and employment manual.
• Discuss discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in related employee training sessions.
• Incorporate standard language prohibiting this form of discrimination in all appropriate documentation, reporting such efforts to the City Controller.

The Executive Order became effective today when Luecke signed his name to the two-page document.

“The City of South Bend is a progressive community that believes in freedom and equality of opportunity for all. We treat everyone with dignity and respect,” Luecke said. “This order ensures that my administration will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment decisions, including hiring, firing, promotion, compensations or other terms and conditions of city employment.”

Any City employee or applicant for employment with the City of South Bend who experiences employment-related discrimination – whether because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or heterosexual – is encouraged to report such incidents to the Division of Human Resources, which will investigate and attempt to resolve the concerns. City employees are also encouraged to report incidents to their supervisor, department head or a Human Resources representative.

An executive order is a statement of administrative policy issued by the mayor and applicable only to the internal operations of city government. It does not impact private employers.

Although this represents Luecke’s first executive order, the mayor indicated he may issue executive orders “from time to time on matters within the scope of Mayor’s office.” Executive orders are a common tool used in governmental executive branches from mayors and governors to the president.

The South Bend Human Rights Ordinance already prohibits City government from discriminating against anyone based on race, color, disability, religion, sex, age, national origin or veteran status. Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination includes being treated differently or harassed because of real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

Contact:  Mikki Dobski, Director of Communications & Special Projects, 235-5855 or 876-1564, or City Attorney Chuck Leone, 235-9241.

How Does Today’s Announcement Affect Trans People? Some good news and some “we’ll see.”

(NCTE: Washington, DC) Today, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination.  The memorandum follows the Administration’s review regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.  The memorandum also directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue guidelines within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies about how to comply with and implement the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

Today’s announcement was a small first step in addressing the needs of LGBT people in federal employment. Obviously, any policy that benefits same-sex couples will benefit transgender people since many trans people are in same-sex relationships.  But it would be a pyrrhic victory indeed if transgender federal employees could count on limited partnership benefits, but not on actual protection from employment discrimination.  Thus NCTE has and continues to prioritize securing clear policies from the administration that federal employees are protected based on gender identity and expression.  It is one of our eleven priorities for 2009 and progress is being made with this announcement today.

While we are just as concerned as many other LGBT people and organizations about the need to increase the pace of positive policy change, it is nonetheless clear from our ongoing work with the administration, as well as public statements made today by OPM and other administration officials, that it is their intention and commitment that the OPM guidance to be issued in the next 90 days will provide real, robust and meaningful protections for transgender federal employees and job applicants.  NCTE will continue to provide expertise as OPM moves forward.

Officials we spoke with today reconfirmed that the decision is firm that the new guidelines to agencies and departments will make clear that discrimination based on gender identity and expression is forbidden under civil service policies and that the policy will be enforced by this Administration. We will be meeting with them in the coming weeks, as part of our continuing work with them, to discuss the specific guidance that will be sent to the many agencies of the federal government to communicate the decisions and explain the policy. The process is also already underway at OPM to update federal personnel materials to make it clear that the federal government does not tolerate discrimination based on gender identity and expression in its hiring practices.

We are now conducting an independent legal analysis of the memo signed by the President today, and we will work with OPM to make sure that they will have a sufficient and meaningful impact protecting transgender federal employees from job discrimination.

We hope that you will join with us in continuing to look for and advocate for these important steps. While we are heartened by our conversations with White House officials and glad for their commitment to providing equal opportunities for all Americans, we will also continue to work diligently to ensure that these decisions are implemented and communicated effectively.  The White House understands, as we do, that this is the first step of many steps we need to take to bring about equality for transgender people.

We know you share our commitment that transgender people need and deserve the opportunity to work, being judged by the quality of our work and the skills to do the job, not by our gender identity or expression.

For more information, visit the National Center for Transgender Equality at http://www.nctequality.org/

Transgender people face pervasive discrimination in every area of life. Transgender people are often rejected by families, harassed and kicked out of school, and discriminated against in daily life in supermarkets, malls, on public transportation, etc. Although all of these problems are terrible, the most acute need for transgender people is anti-discrimination protections in the workplace. When a transgender person loses a job and can’t find another one due to additional discrimination, they can become homeless, are unable to provide for their families, and can end up on state-sponsored welfare programs.

Laws and Policies Protecting Transgender People From Discrimination

A growing number of states and localities prohibit discrimination against transgender people, yet coverage remains spotty and laws are often not enforced. Nationally, 37% of the U.S. population lives in a jurisdiction that prohibits gender identity discrimination. In comparison, sexual orientation protections cover 51% of the country. Currently, there are trans-inclusive laws in 12 states and more than 90 local jurisdictions, including Iowa, Colorado, and Oregon which passed this year.

Corporate America and Transgender Employees

Corporate America has been voluntarily adopting nondiscrimination policies including gender identity. Over 150 Fortune 500 companies have done so thus far; most cite the twin goals of recruitment and retention of talented and experienced employees as the reason. Businesses have shown they are able to comply with non-discrimination policies and laws. When an employee informs a supervisor of plans to transition, there are straightforward actions an employer can take to make the transition smooth and successful for both parties. Issues like bathrooms and dress codes are less complicated than some might imagine. Businesses that have decided to treat their transgender employees well, and not discriminate against them, easily work these issues out. On the other hand, businesses who want to discriminate often disingenuously point to these issues as insurmountable. The Baldwin amendment includes language dealing specifically with dress codes and shower/dressing facilities that ensures businesses will not be burdened by this law.

Public Support for Transgender-Inclusive Discrimination Laws

According to numerous surveys, over 60% of likely voters in the U.S. support a transgender-inclusive federal employment non-discrimination law. Polling data from 2006 shows that voters are more likely to support a candidate who votes for an LGBT discrimination law than they are to vote against. There is also state-specific polling data. In New Jersey, for example, voters supported state legislation to add gender identity protections with a high margin: 70%-19%.

The ENDA the LGBT Community Demands

The LGBT community is unified in its support of restoring the gender identity language in ENDA. Since the sexual orientation-only ENDA (H.R. 3685) was introduced on September 27 this year, already over 340 LGBT and allied organizations formally took a stance of opposition to the legislation. Not one LGBT organization has endorsed H.R. 3685. Passage of the Baldwin amendment would restore LGBT support for ENDA.

• It is unprecedented for Congress to pass civil rights legislation that is not supported by a single organization in the community the law is supposed to protect. Over 300 LGBT organizations representing over 2 million Americans actively oppose any employment nondiscrimination legislation that does not include gender identity.
• HR 3685 does NOT provide sufficient protection against discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. Not only does this bill completely fail to protect transgender people, but it also fails to protect lesbians, gay men, bisexual, and straight people who do not conform to gender stereotypes.
• HR 3685 is morally and strategically wrong. Not only is it morally wrong to leave part of the LGBT community out of this bill, but it is also strategically wrong. We have learned from our work in the states that it is far easier to include gender identity in civil rights legislation the first time it is passed than it is to try to go back and add it in later.

Trends Regarding Support for Trans-Inclusion

• All major national LGBT organizations, including HRC (see vote by Board of HRC documented on HRC’s home page and here ), have now signed on to only support trans-inclusive ENDA.
• Over 90 state level LGBT and allied organizations, covering more than 42 states, have also signed on to the statement urging congress to not divide our community and keep ENDA in its trans-inclusive form.
• The rationalization that we can add gender identity later, consigns transgender people to second-class citizenship on average for more than 10 years.
• Conversely, the rate of passage of laws including both sexual orientation and gender identity from the outset has grown exponentially over the last 5 years.

Basic Facts

• 13 States plus the District of Columbia provide basic civil rights based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression – California, Colorado, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Oregon.
• 7 additional states provide basic civil rights based on Sexual Orientation – Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
• Over half (52%) of the US population
  • will live in jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
• Over a third (37%) of the US population
  • will live in jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Existing Laws on the Books in Indiana: Tippecanoe County and the cities of Fort Wayne, Lafayette, Michigan City, Terre Haute, and West Lafayette prohibit sexual-orientation discrimination in both private and public employment. Marion County and the cities of Indianapolis and Bloomington provide civil rights protections inclusive of both sexual orientation and gender identity.
• By Executive Order of Governor Mitch Daniels, the State of Indiana prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment.

General ENDA Talking Points

• Qualified, hardworking Americans are denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise discriminated against for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance and abilities.
• Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, whether such orientation is real or perceived, effectively denies qualified individuals equality and opportunity in the workplace. Those who experience this form of discrimination have no recourse under current federal law or under the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts.
• Employment discrimination strikes at a fundamental American value — the right of each individual to do his or her job and contribute to society without facing unfair discrimination. Fairness in the workplace has been recognized as a fundamental right protected under federal law.
• Currently, federal law provides basic legal protection against employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin or disability, but not sexual orientation or gender identity and gender expression.