Cultural Competency for Transgender Employees for Healthcare Providers. Job Corps Health and Wellness Conference. Presented by. Presenter. Maya Rupert Federal Policy Attorney National Center for Lesbian Rights 1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 700 Washington D.C. 20008
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Job Corps Health and Wellness Conference
Federal Policy Attorney
National Center for Lesbian Rights
1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 700
Washington D.C. 20008
Case law interpreting “sex” is primarily under Title VII, however, courts import Title VII analysis into Title IX, therefore it is wise to assume the same interpretations will apply under Title IX
A firefighter living as a male (but intending to transition to female imminently) was harassed by coworkers for her increasingly feminine appearance. After speaking with a supervisor about the harassment and her intention to transition, she was suspended from work. Relying on Price Waterhouse, the 6th Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of Smith’s feminine appearance was illegal sex stereotyping. The court, referring to cases in the 70s and 80s that interpreted Title VII less inclusively, explained that the approach taken in those cases “has been eviscerated by Price Waterhouse.” 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004)
Diane Schroer was offered a job as a terrorism analyst at the Library of Congress. She interviewed as Dave because she hadn’t formally transitioned from male-to-female. After getting the offer, she asked her new boss if she could start work as a woman to make a clean transition. The job offer was revoked, with the employer saying she wasn’t a “good fit” and she sued. The court held that the decision of the Library of Congress not to hire a qualified job applicant, solely because she announced her intent to transition from male to female, violated Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination under either of two theories. First, the decision not to hire Schroer because she was viewed as insufficiently masculine (or insufficiently feminine) constituted impermissible sex stereotyping under the theory elaborated in Price Waterhouse. And second, the court held that the decision not to hire Schroer because of her announced intention to change her sex was literally discrimination because of her sex, just as discrimination against religious converts would plainly constitute religious discrimination. Id. 306-07.
WashingtonSeveral States and Localities Have Employment Non-Discrimination Laws Too
98 counties and cities have non-discrimination laws as well
Often transgender people face barriers to receiving healthcare unrelated to law