November 21st, 2009
 

365 Gay: News

Transgender vet wins suit against Library Of Congress


(Washington) A federal judge has ruled that the Library of Congress illegally discriminated against a Special Forces veteran when she was denied a job after announcing her intention to transition from male to female.

In what is described as a groundbreaking decision, the court ruled that discriminating against someone for changing genders is sex discrimination under federal law.

“It is especially gratifying that the court has ruled that discriminating against someone for transitioning is illegal,” said Diane Schroer, the plaintiff in the case.

“I knew all along that the 25 years of experience I gained defending our country didn’t disappear when I transitioned, so it was hard to understand why I was being turned down for a job doing what I do best just because I’m transgender. It is tremendously gratifying to have your faith in this country, and what is fundamentally right and fair, be reaffirmed.”

In reaching its decision, the court ruled: “The evidence established that the Library was enthusiastic about hiring David Schroer – until she disclosed her transsexuality. The Library revoked the offer when it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally, and physically, a woman named Diane. This was discrimination ‘because of . . . sex.’”

The court compared the discrimination faced by Schroer to religious-based discrimination, saying, “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.”

“The court got it exactly right, sending a loud and clear message to employers everywhere: if you fire or refused to hire someone for transitioning, you are guilty of sex discrimination and may well find yourself liable,” said Sharon McGowan, one of the ACLU LGBT Project staff attorneys who tried the case.

The court also ruled that the Library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the Library of Congress on June 2, 2005. After retiring from the military, Schroer, who had been hand-picked to head up a classified national security operation while serving as a Special Forces officer, applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst.

Soon thereafter she was offered the job, which she accepted immediately. Prior to starting work, Schroer took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and thought it would be easier for everyone if she simply started work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn’t a “good fit” for the Library of Congress.

The lawsuit charged that the Library of Congress unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against sex discrimination in the workplace.

The Library of Congress moved to dismiss the case several times, claiming that transgender people are not covered under the 1964 law.

The court’s decision indicated that the next step in the case will be further proceedings to determine the appropriate remedies for this discrimination. Those may include ordering the Library of Congress to hire Schroer, award back pay for the wages she lost or provide monetary compensation for the injury caused by discrimination.

“I very much hope that this ruling will help to eliminate the all-too-pervasive discrimination against gender non-conforming people in all areas. I hope too, that employers, family members, friends and co-workers will begin to understand variations in gender identity from a basis of knowledge and not fear,” Schroer said.


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • JohnM Said: September 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
    • Bravo to the ACLU for taking and winning this case, and to Diane Schroer for standing up for her rights. Justice achieved, one precedent setting case at a time, one progressive law at a time.

  • Quasi Said: September 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
    • This article says:
      “Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.”

      What is the difference in logic when one “chooses to be gay”? Should not the “sex discrimination” clause also apply to “SEXual orientation”? It is beyond my thinking to understand that discrimination is simply discrimination, and needs to be stopped immediately, especially when it interferes in the way one lives if no one else is being hurt, whether physically or emotionally. And no one is being hurt by the way I am living.

      These “so-called” religious bigots made a CHOICE to be religious. Even if I made a choice about being gay, and I do not believe that it was a choice for me. Their choice is no more valid or no more better or certainly not a bit even more divine than “my choice to live as I was born.”

      I sure hope the lawyers and judges know how to use this decision as a precedence setting decision. It should be considered monumental!

  • LOrion Said: September 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
    • This is ‘old’ news, what took you guys so long to get it?

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook