A December trial date has been set in the case of Kate Lynn Blatt, a Pottsville trans woman who claims her former employer discriminated against her due to her gender dysphoria.
Blatt, 36, alleges Cabela’s Retail Inc. committed disability discrimination when denying her access to a gender-appropriate name tag and restroom. She’s seeking more than $150,000 in damages.
Cabela’s tried to have Blatt’s disability claim tossed out, noting that the Americans with Disabilities Act excludes coverage for “gender-identity disorders.”
The ADA protects people with disabilities from discrimination in private employment, public accommodations and governmental services.
But in May, U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. ruled that Blatt’s disability claim can move forward because Blatt reportedly suffers from gender dysphoria, a medical condition that isn’t explicitly excluded from ADA coverage.
Blatt also has retaliation and sex-discrimination claims pending against Cabela’s.
Between September 2006 and March 2007, Blatt worked at Cabela’s outlet in Hamburg as a seasonal stocker. After she complained of mistreatment, Cabela’s retaliated by firing her, Blatt alleges.
Cabela’s is a retail chain that specializes in outdoor sports items.
Jury selection is tentatively set for 10 a.m. Dec. 26 at the U.S. Court House in Center City. After a jury is selected, the trial will take place at the U.S. Court House in Allentown, according to court records.
Neither side had a comment for this story.
Justin F. Robinette, a local civil-rights attorney, said the Blatt case has “important legal implications” for the LGBT community.
“The Blatt case is very important,” Robinette told PGN. “It’s the first time a federal judge has stated that discriminating against someone because of their gender dysphoria is illegal disability discrimination. Ms. Blatt will still need to prove she actually has gender dysphoria, and the employer will likely raise nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. But most workplace-bias cases settle before trial. So it is likely this case will never reach a jury.”
Robinette said it would be helpful if a complete record is developed in Blatt’s case.
“I’d like to see the law of disability discrimination for trans people developed further in the Blatt case. The more facts that are fleshed out publicly, the better for our community. Clear guidance as to what constitutes illegal gender-dysphoria discrimination is needed, and it would be useful to have examples of court-ordered reasonable accommodations for someone experiencing gender dysphoria.”
Robinette also expressed hope that trans people without a gender-dysphoria diagnosis will have protections under the ADA in the future.
“Judge Leeson considered ‘gender dysphoria’ protected under the disability laws — despite Congress’ archaic and biased exclusion of ‘gender-identity disorders.’ I’m optimistic that someday a court will strike down that exclusion itself and hold that trans people without gender dysphoria are covered under the disability laws. That’s because the ADA provides broad coverage for people with a history or ‘record’ of a disability. Also, the ADA covers people without an actual disability, but who are perceived to be disabled.”