Earlier this month, in the first known transgender rights disability discrimination case, a judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a person who suffers from gender dysphoria may be protected by the American with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) prohibition on discrimination in employment. In particular, Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. held that gender dysphoria does not fall within the category of “gender identity disorders” which are excluded by the ADA, using a narrow interpretation of that term.
The plaintiff, Kate Lynn Blatt, was hired by Cabela’s in September 2006. She alleged that shortly after being hired, Cabela’s discriminated against her based on her sex and disability due to her diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which she admitted is also known as gender identity disorder. She claimed that her condition substantially limits major life activities of interacting with others, reproducing, and social and occupational functioning. She claimed that Cabela’s retaliated against her for complaining of discrimination, through a pattern of antagonism, including intentional and repeated refusal to provide her with a correct name tag, instead requiring her to wear a name tag with the name “James,” her birth name. She alleged that Cabela’s then terminated her employment on the basis of her sex and disability.
In its defense, Cabela’s pointed to one of the exceptions to the ADA’s broad definition of “disability,” which is “gender identity disorders.” Judge Leeson read the term “gender identity disorder” narrowly to refer “only to the condition of identifying with a different gender, not to encompass (and there exclude from ADA protection) a condition like Blatt’s gender dysphoria, which goes beyond merely identifying with a different gender and is characterized by clinically significant stress and other impairments that may be disabling.”
Judge Leeson pointed to a Senate debate which took place in 1989 during which the ADA’s coverage of homosexuality, HIV, and AIDS was discussed. In those debates, the Senate made clear that while homosexuals would not be covered by the ADA, conditions from which they may suffer should be. Therefore, Judge Leeson held that the ADA does not exclude from coverage disabling conditions that persons of various sexual identities may have, such as gender dysphoria.
This case may pave the way for more lawsuits for disabling conditions that are related to gender identity and/or expression. Now is a good time for employers to review their equal employment opportunity policies and statements to consider whether those documents should be modified.
