While the law remains unclear on whether a transgender employee is entitled to legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a transgender employee also may have rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case involves a transgender female employee who sued outdoor gear retailer Cabela’s, claiming she was discriminated against under Title VII and the ADA, and that her employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA due to her disability.
She claims to suffer from a medical condition known as “gender dysphoria.”
The complaint alleges that former employee Kate Lynn Blatt was previously diagnosed with “gender dysphoria, also known as gender identity disorder, which substantially limits one or more of Blatt’s major life activities, including, but not limited to, interacting with others, reproducing, and social and occupational functioning.”
While it may be true that Blatt suffers from a mental or physical disorder that significantly impacts a major life activity, as required by the ADA, Blatt’s case presents a legal conundrum because Congress expressly excluded certain medical conditions from coverage under the law, including “gender identity disorder.”
Blatt claims if that’s the case, then her equal protection rights have been violated.
To avoid this constitutional quagmire, the federal court held, in ruling against Cabela’s on its motion to dismiss, “it is fairly possible to interpret the term gender identity disorders narrowly to refer to simply the condition of identifying with a different gender, not to exclude from ADA coverage disabling conditions that persons who identify with a different gender may have — such as Blatt’s gender dysphoria, which substantially limits her major life activities of interacting with others, reproducing, and social and occupational functioning. Because this interpretation allows the court to avoid the constitutional questions raised in this case, it is the court’s duty to adopt it.”
Accordingly, the judge ruled that Blatt’s condition is not excluded by the ADA, and Cabela’s motion to dismiss her ADA claims is denied.
Thus, this case will proceed on the ADA claims as well as those under Title VII, at least to the summary judgment state and possibly to trial, unless Cabela’s decides to file what is known as an interlocutory appeal to the federal circuit court to have this specific legal issue resolved.
The attention given in recent years to transgender workers demonstrates the need for clarity in legal rights and obligations.
Employers should undeniably develop policies and expectations that no employee suffers discrimination or harassment, including those within the LGBTQ community.
This should be true regardless of how the legal opinions pan out, and whether these characteristics are determined to be covered by Title VII, where there is currently a split within federal jurisdictions.
However, the Blatt case raises a new element where employers should tread carefully, especially since consistency is key in providing ADA rights and benefits.
Indeed, under the ADA, covered employees are entitled to benefits that other workers can’t get. Therefore, the accommodations issue is not as simple as non-discrimination. Covered employees under the ADA have affirmative rights and benefits.
The Blatt case is at the very preliminary stage, and centers on a very specific legal argument that will most likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court unless Congress amends the ADA.
As cases take many years to reach the high court, employers won’t have certainty in the law anytime soon.