Leave a Comment Gregory in Salt Lake City
11th Circuit upholds ruling in favor of transgender woman fired from Georgia Legislative Counsel’s Office
December 6, 2011
By Jacob Combs
Thanks to Kathleen for sending us this decision. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has just released a ruling upholding a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the basis of sex discrimination to Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who was fired from the Georgia Legislative Counsel’s Office.
Glenn, who was born male but began to transition to female in 2005, was hired in October 2005 to be an editor in the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Council (OLC). Glenn, who at the time of her hiring went by Glenn Morrison and presented herself as a man, informed her supervisor the next year that she was in the proess of transitioning. When Glenn came to a Halloween party dressed as a woman, Sewell Brumby, the head of the OLC, informed her that her appearance was inappropriate, calling Glenn’s actions “unnatural.” When Glenn informed her superiors in 2007 that she planned to begin coming to work as a woman as part of her transition, Brumby fired her, arguing that her gender transition was “inappropriate, … disruptive, … [and] that some people would view it as a moral issue.”
Glenn sued Brumby, making two claims of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. In the first, she claimed that Brumby discriminated against her because of her sex, and in the second, she argued that he did so based on her medical condition (Gender Identity Disorder). The district court granted summary judgment to Glenn on the sex discrimination claim, and summary judgment to Brumby on the medical discrimination claim.
The appellate court ruled that discriminating against someone based on his or her gender non-comformity is a form of sex-based discrimination, and therefore forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. In doing so, they relied on a previous Supreme Court decision holding that discrimination on the basis of gender stereotype is a form of sex-based discrimination. In its decision, the court stated:
We conclude that a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity.
Because Brumby’s own testimony made clear that he fired Glenn due to her gender non-conformity, the 11th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling that the termination was one based on sex discrimination. The court declined to review Glenn’s appeal regarding the claim of medical discrimination, saying that the ruling in her favor regarding sex discrimination provides her full relief.
This case is an exciting win for transgender individuals, and sets an important precedent in a circuit that holds jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia. It also shows just how important the push for a federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is, and how transgender issues must be included and discussed in the wider push for LGBT rights.
Read the full decision below, from Scribd:
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
16 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | December 6, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Checking out.
2.
Nyx | December 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm
And, on another front…
U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights Abroad
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/united-st…
3.
Tom | December 6, 2011 at 12:31 pm
An unrelated note: The Scottish Government is completing a consultation on same-sex marriage and it is finishing in just a few days. Equal Marriage Scotland has a questionnaire which will be submitted to the Scottish Government; the responses to which could well shape the future of marriage in Scotland.
You don't need to be Scottish to complete the survey, it will only take 5 minutes and each voice really does make a difference – even if it's coming from all the way across the Pond!
http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/consultation.php
4.
Ann S. | December 6, 2011 at 12:58 pm
This is an extremely important ruling.
5.
Bob | December 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm
thanks Mr Obama, for using foreign aid to promote gay rghts abroad,,,,, THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!
6.
Phil | December 6, 2011 at 1:33 pm
This is great news. However, I’d actually slightly disagree with the article’s conclusion. If the courts come to a consensus that discrimination against trans folk is already prohibited as sex discrimination, then that actually removes the apparently contentious question of whether we need to push for trans rights in laws prohibiting discrimination based on orientation.
7.
Gregory in SLC | December 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm
read through it a couple of times and really makes me happy! and tearful….shout out to Michelle and Cherie!
8.
Sam | December 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm
And what's so shockingly wonderful is that arch-conservative Judge Pryor joined this forceful, simply-reasoned opinion. Check out this nytimes article from right after his confirmation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/10pryo…
9.
Sam | December 6, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Also…a decision in 5 days? Remarkable
10.
Joe | December 6, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Interestingly, federal law is more progressive on transgender issues than sexual orientation. The 6th and now the 11th Circuit (and if I'm not mistaken 9th and 1st) have held that everyone is protected against gender/sex discrimination including the transgender community. This includes arch-anti LGBT states such as Alabama. Though this Court's decision I think was based on Equal Protection not on Title VII. Also, transition surgery is now tax deductible.
11.
Mark M. (Seattle) | December 6, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Removing the word Gay from 'Deck the Halls'
The level of hatred is mind numbing…but also VERY nice to see support for 'us' as well.
Christmas carols help us get in the mood to celebrate the holidays. But would they have the same meaning if we changed a few words? Parents of students at an elementary school in Michigan say, "No." A music teacher at Cherry Knoll Elementary School in Traverse City decided to change the word "gay" to "bright" in "Deck the Halls" for the children's Christmas concert. Her reasoning for the switch? First- and second-graders would not stop giggling when they sang the word "gay." Several parents were so upset about the change they went to the school's Facebook page to express their opinions. One parent said, "By taking the word 'gay' out of 'Deck the Halls,' you are making it a big deal. One word can have different meanings." Another parent voiced, "Can one word in a 150-year-old classic Christmas carol really offend someone?" The negative comments have since been deleted from the school's Facebook page, and wall posts have been disabled. Cherry Knoll Principal Chris Parker is on the parents' side, saying, "This would have been a great opportunity to teach that 'gay' has more than one meaning and is not a bad word." In response to the controversy over the word change, the original lyrics have now been restored.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/parents-…
12.
MichGuy | December 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Im very happy about this ruling. ESPECIALLY since it is in a highly conservative southern area of the country. Its hard to get equality in the south as it is so this court case sets wonderful precedent.
13.
Bob | December 6, 2011 at 2:53 pm
as it could be from here on in,,, it was pretty straight forward discrimination !!!!!!!!!!!!!
14.
Str8Grandmother | December 6, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Sam you are sure right about that judge! Here is only a little from the article
"In a court brief, Judge Pryor once asserted that a right to same-sex relations would also confer a right to bestiality and necrophilia, views that critics say are extreme and make him unfit for a lifetime appointment."
15.
Fluffyskunk | December 8, 2011 at 8:14 am
I don't see hatred, I see cluelessness. I see yet another person to whom it never occurred that there are gay people. Unless I see an explicitly homophobic quote from this kind of person, I prefer not to think of them as an enemy, but as an opportunity to educate. I'd hate to see a potential ally turned against us by kneejerk calls for blood because of an honest mistake they made when they simply didn't know any better.
16.
Mark M. (Seattle) | December 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm
"kneejerk calls for blood"??? Where in the slightest do you see a call for violence or 'blood' as you say in my post?
I understand your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. I see hatred…a hatred deep enough so as to not wish to use a word…a word this person has chosen to associate with homosexuals and only homosexuals…a word she chooses to see as a negative, an undesirable word. Gay has more meanings than as a term for homosexual.
IMHO
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.