-
Miles v. New York Univ
Noting that the phrase "on the basis of sex" in Title IX is interpreted in the same manner as similar language in Title VII, the court held that a transgender female student could proceed with a claim that she was sexually harassed "on the basis of sex" in violation of Title IX. -
Rosa v. Parks W. Bank & Trust Co
Citing Title VII case law, the court concluded that a transgender plaintiff, who was biologically male, stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by alleging that he was denied a loan application because he was dressed in traditionally female attire. -
Schwenck v. Hartford
Citing Title VII case law, the court concluded that a transgender woman stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Gender Motivated Violence Act based on the perception that she was a "man who 'failed to act like one.'" The court noted that "the initial approach" taken in earlier federal appellate Title VII cases rejecting claims by transgender plaintiffs "has been overruled by the language and logic of Price Waterhouse." -
Tronetti v. TLC HealthNet Lakeshore Hosp.
Relying on the reasoning in Schwenck v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2000), the court ruled that plaintiff's sex discrimination claims of hostile work environment harassment and discriminatory discharge arising from her transition and sex reassignment surgery were actionable under Title VII, based on factual allegations that she was discriminated against for "failing to act like a man. -
Smith v. City of Salem
The plaintiff alleged that he was suspended based on sex after he began to express a more feminine appearance and notified his employer that he would eventually undergo a complete physical transformation from male to female. The court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals based on gender stereotyping. -
Barnes v. City of Cincinnati
Plaintiff, who "was a male-to-female transsexual who was living as a male while on duty but often lived as a woman off duty [and] had a reputation throughout the police department as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser," alleged he was demoted because of his failure to conform to sex stereotypes. The court held that this stated a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII. -
Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm, Inc
Plaintiff alleged sex-based harassment and termination in violation of Title VII after the employer learned that plaintiff had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and plaintiff began presenting at work as a female after having presented as a male during the first four years of employment. Denying the employer's motion to dismiss, the court held that because the complaint. -
Creed v. Family Express Corp
The plaintiff, a transgender female, alleged facts permitting an inference that she was terminated because of gender stereotypes; specifically, that she was perceived by her employer to be a man while employed as a sales associate and was fired for refusing to present herself in a masculine way. -
Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc.
he plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to sex discrimination when the employer rescinded its job offer after learning that she was transgender. Denying the employer's motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was actionable as sex discrimination under Title VII on the theory that she failed to comport with the employer's notions of how a male should look. -
Glenn v. Brumby
Federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a transgender woman fired from her job as a Legislative Editor after she stated her intention to live as a woman in accordance with her health care providers' recommendations. -
Radtke v. Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Union Local #638 Health, Welfare, Eye, & Dental Fund,
Assessing a claim under ERISA for wrongful termination of benefits to a legal spouse of a transgender individual, the court quoted the language from Smith v. City of Salem that the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse "eviscerated" the "narrow view" of "sex" articulated in earlier Title VII cases, and observed. -
Parris v. Keystone Foods
Plaintiff, a transgender female, alleged that she was discharged from her job at a chicken processing facility because of her "gender non-conformity." The district court, citing Glenn v. Brumby, recognized that the plaintiff's claims were covered by Title VII's sex discrimination prohibitions, but granted summary judgment to the employer on the ground that plaintiff's comparator evidence and evidence of discriminatory. -
Finkle v. Howard Cty., Md.
Denying the county's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on a Title VII claim brought by a volunteer auxiliary police officer, the court ruled that the officer was an "employee" for Title VII purposes, and that her claim that she was discriminated against "because of her obvious transgendered status" raised a cognizable claim of sex discrimination. T -
Transgender Boy Against Virginia
Case is about about a boy and seeing if he can use the boys bathroom -
Lewis v. High Point Regional Health Sys.
Plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant, alleged she was denied hire for several positions because of her transgender status. At the time of her interviews, she was anatomically male, and was undergoing hormone replacement therapy in preparation for sex reassignment surgery in the future. -
Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales, L.L.C.,
Reversing summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's claim that she was terminated from her job as an auto mechanic because she is transgender, the court remanded the case for trial because there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether gender bias was a motivating factor. -
Fabian v. Hosp. of Central Conn.
Plaintiff, an orthopedic surgeon, brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim alleging she was not hired because she disclosed her identity as a transgender woman who would begin work after transitioning to presenting as female. -
Doe v. Ariz.
The plaintiff, a corrections officer, alleged the Department of Corrections violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination based on gender identity when supervisors tolerated harassment of him and breached his confidentiality by informing prison inmates of his transition. -
Roberts v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist.
Expressly adopting the EEOC's holdings in Macy and Lusardi, the court ruled that plaintiff, a transgender school police officer, was subjected to sex discrimination in violation of Title VII when he was told by his employer that he could not use either the men's or women's bathroom at work. -
Mickens v. General Electric Co.
he court denied the employer's motion to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination claim in which a transgender plaintiff alleged he was unlawfully denied use of the male bathroom close to his work station, and then was fired for attendance issues resulting from having to go to a bathroom farther away. He also alleged that once his supervisor learned of his transgender status, he was singled out for reprimands, and no action was taken in response to his reports of coworker harassment. -
Baker v. Aetna Life Ins.
The court ruled that an employee stated a claim against her employer for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII based on denial of coverage under employer-provided health insurance plan for costs associated with surgery related to gender transition. -
Schroer v. Billington,
The plaintiff, a transgender female, was offered a position as a terrorism research analyst before she had changed her name and begun presenting herself as a woman. After the plaintiff notified the employer that she was under a doctor's care for gender dysphoria and would be undergoing gender transition, the employer withdrew the offer, explaining that the plaintiff would not be a "good fit.