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 | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms

