The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), on Sept. 25, 2014, filed two lawsuits seeking protection of transgendered people in the workplace.
Specifically, the EEOC accused a Michigan funeral home and a Florida eye clinic of illegally firing employees who were transitioning from male to female in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In its lawsuit filed against the Florida eye clinic, the EEOC alleges that the defendant’s employee performed her duties satisfactorily throughout her employment and was fired only after she began to present (i.e., dress) as a woman and informed her employer that she was transgender.
Likewise, in its case against the Michigan the funeral home, the EEOC alleges that the funeral home employee always adequately performed her duties in the position of funeral director/embalmer but was suddenly fired two weeks after she advised her employer that she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female and would soon start to dress in appropriate female business attire, consistent with her gender identity as a woman.
According to the EEOC, the alleged actions of the employers violate Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination, including that based on gender stereotyping. EEOC Indianapolis Regional Attorney Laurie Young stated “Title VII prohibits employers from firing employees because they do not behave according to the employer’s stereotypes of how men and women should act, and this includes employees who present themselves according to their gender identity.”
These lawsuits further emphasize the EEOC’s ongoing efforts to implement its Strategic Enforcement Plan, which includes “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions, as they may apply” as one of the EEOC’s top enforcement priorities.
For additional information, find the EEOC press releases regarding these two lawsuits here (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-25-14d.cfm) and here (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-25-14e.cfm).
A member of the firm's Bloomfield Hills office, Courtney L. Nichols serves as Co-Leader of Plunkett Cooney's Labor and Employment Law Practice Group.
Ms. Nichols focuses her litigation practice in the area of employment law ...
Add a comment
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Wage & Hour
- Human Resources
- Employment Agreement
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Employment Discrimination
- Minimum Wage
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Unemployment Benefits
- Public Education
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Regulatory Law
- OSHA Issues
- National Labor Relations Act
- At Will Employment
- Title VII
- Sick Leave
- Workplace Harassment
- National Labor Relations Board
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Noncompete Agreements
- Transgender Issues
- Department of Justice
- Workers' Compensation
- Medicare Issues
- Class Actions
- Sexual Harassment
- Civil Rights
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Tax Law
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Unanimous Supreme Court Finds Lip Service not Good Enough for Disabled Student
- Michigan Senate Votes to Repeal 2012 Right-to-Work Law
- Michigan Appellate Court Overturns Decision on Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave Requirements
- Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Could Result in High Exposure Claims Against Employers
- FTC Proposes Ban on All Employer Noncompete Agreements
- Court Delays Ruling on Fate of Michigan’s Paid Sick Leave, Minimum Wage Laws Until February 2023
- Michigan Supreme Court Affirms State’s Civil Right Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
- DOJ Issues Guidance on ADA, Opioid Crisis Issues
- Congress Passes Law, With Retroactive Effect, to Invalidate Forced Arbitration Provisions at the Employee’s Election
- U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Implementation of Vaccine Requirement for Large Businesses