Please read the below case study and answer the following: In one or two paragra

Question

Please read the below case study and answer the following: In one or two paragraphs, explain the main components of the case and state applicable federal, state, or local employment law. Then, discuss whether you agree or disagree with the final ruling in the case. In your discussion, be sure to include the implications of the case for both the organization and the employee(s) in question.

Case study:

Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff, a transgender female, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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. Relying on Price Waterhouse and other Title VII precedent, the court concluded that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff based on her sex by terminating her because she was transitioning from male to female. The court stated that a person is considered transgender "precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes." As a result, there is "congruence" between discriminating against transgender individuals and discrimination on the basis of "gender-based behavioral norms." Because everyone is protected against discrimination based on sex stereotypes, such protections cannot be denied to transgender individuals. "The nature of the discrimination is the same; it may differ in degree but not in kind." The court further concluded that discrimination based on sex stereotypes is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, and government termination of a transgender person for his or her gender nonconformity is unconstitutional sex discrimination. Although in this case the defendant asserted that it fired the plaintiff because of potential lawsuits if she used the women's restroom, the record showed that the plaintiff's office had only single-use unisex restrooms, and therefore there was no evidence that the defendant was actually motivated by litigation concerns about restroom use. The defendant provided no other justification for its action, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

Explanation / Answer

The main component of this case is the discrimination faced by the transgender community in organizations and the laws that are extended to protect them from discrimination. Title VII of civil rights act protects the employees from gender discrimination during employment activities and the same protection has been extended towards the transgender. As the discrimination against transgender is also based on sex, they are also covered under the Federal law. Hence the court ruling in favor of the transgender is correct. In my opinion, the transgender employees should not be discriminated in workplace and equal protection should be granted for them. It is clear from this case that discrimination was only based on the gender as the defendant’s argument regarding the restroom was proved wrong. It is true that other women in the organization may feel reluctant to use the same bathroom when the gender identity is in a question. Organizations should make the arrangements to solve this problem by arranging separate restrooms for transgender instead of firing them as the gender is not going to affect their ability to perform work.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.