Transgender Employees Protected By Federal Law Against Discrimination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.23.12
The Eleventh Circuit recently held that transgender employees are protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, bolstering employee claims for harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Glenn v. Brumby, Nos. 10-14833, 10-15015 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2011). While the plaintiff, as a Georgia state employee, brought her claims of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, the Eleventh Circuit used broad language to find that such discrimination was also unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Under the Glenn analysis, the types of prohibited discrimination covered by Title VII in the private workplace would now include discrimination against transgender employees or any employee discriminated against because of his or her perceived "gender nonconformity." Furthermore, many states, cities, and counties have enacted laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Most recently, Baltimore County, Maryland joined the jurisdictions that provide such protections.
In light of these developments, employers should take time to revisit their anti-discrimination policies and practices. Employers should refresh their training materials to ensure employees and managers recognize, address, and prevent prohibited conduct, and to ensure neutrality in policies that affect employees - such as gender-based dress codes. When an employee undergoes a gender transition, employees should be instructed to avoid any inquiries regarding a transitioning employee's medical history.
Employers should also be familiar with the various state and local laws that address discrimination based on gender identity or expression. These mandates are being implemented with increasing frequency and may catch employers unaware.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25

