Six LGBT-advocacy groups have submitted an amicus brief in support of trans woman Kate L. Blatt’s attempt to assert workplace anti-bias claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The groups are Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Mazzoni Center, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National LGBTQ Task Force and Transgender Law Center.
Blatt is suing for job discrimination in federal court. Part of her lawsuit contends that Congress acted unconstitutionally in 1989 when it excluded gender-identity disorder from ADA coverage.
The ADA protects disabled individuals from discrimination in private employment, public accommodations and governmental services.
Blatt worked as a seasonal stocker at Cabela’s Retail Inc. from September 2006 to March 2007. Cabela’s banned her from a female restroom, thus discriminating against her on the basis of her disability, Blatt alleges.
But Cabela’s contends that, since the ADA excludes GID, Blatt couldn’t have been discriminated against because of a trans-related disability.
In a 23-page amicus brief submitted Jan. 23, the six groups emphasize that Congress never excluded gender dysphoria from the ADA, which Blatt suffered from. Thus, she should be permitted to assert anti-bias claims under the ADA.
“ADA protection is so important,” said Kevin M. Barry, an attorney who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of the six groups. “It allows Ms. Blatt to say she shouldn’t be fired because of who she is, and that she’s entitled to a reasonable accommodation for her disability.”
Barry emphasized the groups aren’t suggesting that all trans people are disabled.
“It’s very important for people to understand that we’re not in any way suggesting that every trans person has a disability. To the contrary, most do not. But trans people who do have a disability should be protected by the ADA, just like everyone else with a disability.”
He said some legislators in 1989 mistakenly believed GID was a sexual-behavior disorder.
“Gender-identity disorder was never a sexual-behavior disorder,” Barry said. “Congress got it wrong. Gender dysphoria isn’t a sexual-behavior disorder either. In fact, it’s not a disorder at all.”
Barry noted that the American Psychiatric Association in 2013 removed gender-identity disorder — and added gender dysphoria — in its diagnostic manual.
“Congress apparently believed the distress that some trans people feel was a sexual-behavior disorder,” Barry continued. “The new APA diagnosis makes it clear that gender dysphoria has nothing to do with sexual behavior. These changes bode well for Ms. Blatt.”
Barry added: “The APA is now saying that incongruence between gender identity and anatomy is normal. We don’t need to treat the incongruence; we need to treat the distress that can result from the incongruity.”
Barry also said recent studies view genetic and/or hormonal factors as contributing to gender dysphoria.
Additionally, the amicus brief supports Blatt’s claim that ADA’s GID exclusion is unconstitutional.
Declaring GID’s exclusion unconstitutional, or that the exclusion doesn’t encompass gender dysphoria, “would provide sorely needed, comprehensive anti-discirmination protections to transgender people. It would also eliminate a source of blatant, legally sanctioned prejudice against them,” the brief states.
Neelima Vanguri, an attorney for Blatt, expressed appreciation for the amicus brief.
“We’re very pleased these six groups have taken an interest,” Vanguri told PGN. “We want Kate Lynn [Blatt] to be permitted to assert ADA claims. The groups present an alternate argument for the court’s consideration. And we’re delighted they’ve done so.”
As of press time, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl hadn’t ruled on whether he’ll accept the amicus brief for consideration.