- This was a very important decision by EEOOC because it changed its previous position. Do you understand the agency’s analysis of why it held as it did in the decision?
- Do you understand why the prospective employer may have been concerned and made the decision it did? Explain.
- Given the evolution of the law as set forth by EEOC, do you agree with EEOC’s conclusion?
Facts: A male applied for a position for which he was highly qualified. Based on his qualifications he was virtually told he had the job as long as his background check checked out.. Several weeks later he informed the employer that he was transitioning to female. The applicant was then told that the position was no longer available. Believing he was told this only because the prospective employer now knew the applicant was transitioning, the applicant filed a claim alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity as a violation of Title VII.
Decision: The EEOC determined that gender identity was, in fact, actionable under Title VII as a form of gender discrimination and the applicant’s rights under Title VII were violated.. The agency relied on a line of cases stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse that said that gender stereotyping of a female employee who was not judged on the basis of her performance for being promoted to partner, but instead based on how well she adhered to a standard of femininity, was a violation of Title VII. The Court said that employees could not be judged by notions of what an employer thought was appropriate for one gender or the other. That reasoning was then applied to cases in which males were treated less well because they exhibited more feminine behavior, then on to whether making a decision on the basis one had been one gender, then changed to another. EEOC decided that since all were considerations based on notions of how well an employee fit into an employer’s gender stereotype the same analysis applied to being transgender and was thus illegal
