U.S. Court Says Transsexuals Not Special

Story >

U.S. Court Says Transsexuals Not Special

Special Report - October 5, 2007
A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision on September 20, 2007, ruling that transsexuals are not a specially protected class of workers under a federal nondiscrimination employment law. Krystal Etsitty, a bus driver, filed a lawsuit against her former employer, alleging that she was terminated because she was a transsexual and because she failed “to conform to their expectations of stereotypical male behavior.” She argued that her termination constituted gender discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Throughout her hiring and training, Ms. Etsitty presented herself as a man and used male restrooms. Her employer, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), discovered her sexual orientation when she met with her supervisor to inform him that she was a transsexual and that she would begin to appear more female at work and would eventually change her sex. After that meeting, Ms. Etsitty did begin to appear more female at work and also began using the public female restrooms while driving her route. She was fired from her job because UTA was concerned about liability resulting from its employee using the female restrooms while still possessing the physical characteristics of a male.

The Court ruled that transsexuals are not a protected class under Title VII, which makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because of the employee’s sex. The plain meaning of “sex” as used in the statute encompasses nothing more than being male or female, and transsexuals are not entitled to antidiscrimination protections under Title VII merely on the basis of being transsexual. Like all other employees, they are protected from discrimination only if it is based on being male or female.

The Court found that UTA had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing Estitty—UTA was concerned the use of women’s public restrooms by an employee wearing a UTA uniform who was a biological male could result in liability for UTA. The Court concluded: “such motivation constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Etsitty’s termination under Title VII.”