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. 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.
The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to sex discrimination when the employer rescinded its job offer after learning that she was transgender. 2000), the court ruled that plaintiff's sex discrimination claims of hostile work environment harassment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." , 101 Fair Empl.
The defendant provided no other justification for its action, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment. The court held that this stated a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII. The court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals based on gender stereotyping.
must extend to [sex-based] discrimination of any kind that meets the statutory requirements." , 490 U. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." , 2016 WL 158820 (11th Cir. The employer asserted that the plaintiff was fired for sleeping on the job and noted that other employees had been fired for the same offense. § 1983 alleging unlawful discrimination based on sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause when she was terminated from her position with the Georgia General Assembly. Plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant, alleged she was denied hire for several positions because of her transgender status. The court reasoned: "[I]t would seem that any discrimination against transsexuals (as transsexuals) - individuals who, by definition, do not conform to gender stereotypes - is proscribed by Title VII's proscription of discrimination on the basis of sex as interpreted by , 959 F. 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. The fugitive pair were arrested under a European Arrest Warrant following their conviction for the sexual abuse of minors.
Police believe they had been living in the shed for some time in order to evade justice.
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.