A federal judge has cleared the way for a Pennsylvania litigant with Gender Identity Disorder to pursue her disability-discrimination claim in federal court.
On May 2, U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno ruled that GID in some cases can be disabling — or perceived to be disabling — and thus protected from bias.
The judge denied a request from a firm being sued by transwoman Janis Stacy to categorically exclude GID from antibias protections in the state.
Last year, Stacy filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit, alleging that LSI Corp., an Allentown electronics firm, discriminated against her, partly due to her GID.
GID is a formal diagnosis for people experiencing ongoing discomfort with their biological sex.
In his ruling, Robreno said GID should be assessed on a case-by-case basis in Pennsylvania to determine whether it meets the definition of a disability under relevant antibias laws.
Stacy, 53, worked at LSI and Agere Systems Inc. — which merged with LSI — for 10 years as an engineer before her 2008 termination, according to court records.
Stacy’s lawsuit, which also names Agere as a defendant, alleges she suffered adverse employment actions dating back to 2005, when she started transitioning at work.
Despite her GID, Stacy was fully capable of performing the duties of her job, according to her lawsuit.
Defense attorneys wanted Robreno to disqualify GID as a disability protected under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Allentown Human Relations Act.
Those laws define a disability as a condition that substantially limits, or is percieved to substantially limit, a major life activity.
Defense papers claimed the laws were modeled after two federal laws — the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act — that specifically exclude GID from antibias coverage.
Thus, GID should be excluded from antibias coverage in Pennsylvania, defense papers stated.
The defense noted judges in Pennsylvania have consistently rejected GID-based discrimination claims — though none have reached the state Supreme Court.
Scott B. Goldshaw, an attorney for Stacy, said the prior judicial rulings don’t prevent Stacy from having an opportunity to prove her GID-based discrimination claim.
“Just because the other cases didn’t have facts to establish a disabled status, that doesn’t mean my client doesn’t have the necessary facts,” Goldshaw told PGN.
Goldshaw called Robreno’s ruling a victory for transgender rights.
“It’s a significant victory for people who believe the transgender community should be afforded the same protections within the state’s antibias laws as anyone else,” Goldshaw said.
Attorneys for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging Robreno to reject the defendants’ request, “how we believe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule on a matter of Pennsylvania law,” said PHRC spokesperson Shannon Powers.
Powers said there have been four GID-based discrimination complaints filed with the PHRC since July 2007.
Jennifer L. Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, based in Boston, praised Robreno’s ruling.
“It’s a very significant decision, and it also means that other federal courts interpreting other state laws will be influenced by this court’s analysis,” she said.
Levi said it’s wrong to arbitrarily exclude trans-related health conditions from anti-bias protections.
“There is no principled reason for excluding transition-related health conditions from antibias laws as long as there’s no specific exclusion written into the law,” she said.
Levi acknowledged that some members of the transgender community don’t want GID viewed as a disability due to the stigma associated with the term.
“The way to deal with that stigma isn’t to abandon the legal protections that are in place,” she said. “Instead, you work to educate people about the fact that the underlying condition of being transgender is not a condition that diminishes a person’s ability to work — or otherwise contribute to society.”
The Kunkletown resident also is claiming sex and gender-identity discrimination. Both categories are protected in Allentown, where Stacy contends she worked.
But defense papers state that Stacy worked in nearby East Hanover Township, which doesn’t protect gender identity.
Defense attorney Robert W. Cameron declined to comment on pending litigation.
But he pointed to defense papers, which state that Stacy was laid off due to a workforce reduction, not because of discrimination on the basis of any protected category.
“Defendants maintain strictly enforced policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation against employees on the basis of any protected status,” stated defense papers.
Stacy’s lawsuit is in the fact-gathering stage, and a jury trial isn’t expected until December at the earliest. She’s suing for an undisclosed amount in damages, according to court records.
Tim Cwiek can be reached at [email protected].