Noble Step for Transgender Employees Protected Under the ADA
In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added "Gender Identity Disorder" to its third volume of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Affecting approximately 0.014 percent of transgender persons, gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria is defined by the DSM as persistent cross-gender identification coupled with clinically significant distress in social, occupational or other important areas in functioning.
July 26, 2017 at 03:57 PM
6 minute read
In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added “Gender Identity Disorder” to its third volume of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Affecting approximately 0.014 percent of transgender persons, gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria is defined by the DSM as persistent cross-gender identification coupled with clinically significant distress in social, occupational or other important areas in functioning.
Common complications of the disorder include depression, emotional distress, isolation and suicide. Although the number of transgender persons in the United States is difficult to measure, data compiled by the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, estimates that 1.4 million adults in the United States identify as transgender—meaning that as many as 20,000 Americans are struggling with gender identity disorder, and likely many more who do not report or self identify as transgender.
Despite its place in the DSM, gender identity disorder was historically exempt as a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA explicitly exempts from its definition of disability “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments or other sexual behavior disorders.” Remarkably, lawmakers at the time felt that allowing gender identity disorders to be protected under the ADA would result in protection for employees engaging in activities employers deemed to be “immoral.” However, in a less Neanderthal approach to gender identity, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected an employer's motion to dismiss holding that, after being refused accommodation for gender identity disorder, a transgender employee sufficiently stated a claim under the ADA, see Blatt v. Cabela's Retail, No. 5:14-cv-04822 (E.D. Pa. May 17).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Forgotten Ballot: Expanding Voting Access for Incarcerated Populations
5 minute readState-Sanctioned Discrimination: Title IX’s Expansive Loophole for Religious Institutions
8 minute readGuiding LGBTQ+ Clients on Safeguarding Their Rights and Protections in Uncertain Political Climates
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Semiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
- 2Zuckerman Spaeder Gets Ready to Move Offices in DC, Deploy AI Tools in 2025
- 3Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 4Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
- 53rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250