For those of who do not know who Diane Schroer is, she applied for a job at the Library of Congress for the position of a terrorism research analyst and in that positions she would be writing briefs on terrorism to Congress and the Executive Branch. She was offered the job but that offer was later rescinded when she told them she was about to transition. Here is a little bit about her qualifications as it was written in the courts decision…
Here are some of the legal reviews of the case…FactsDiane Schroer is a male-to-female transsexual. Although born male, Schroer has a female gender identity – an internal, psychological sense of herself as a woman. Tr. at 37.
In August 2004, before she changed her legal name or began presenting as a woman, Schroer applied for the position of Specialist in Terrorism and International Crime with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress. The terrorism specialist provides expert policy analysis to congressional committees, members of Congress and their staffs. Pl. Ex. 1. The position requires a security clearance. Case 1:05-cv-01090-JR Document 70 Filed 09/19/2008 Page 1 of 35 Schroer was well qualified for the job. She is a graduate of both the National War College and the Army Command and General Staff College, and she holds masters degrees in history and international relations. During Schroer’s twentyfive years of service in the U.S. Armed Forces, she held important command and staff positions in the Armored Calvary, Airborne, Special Forces and Special Operations Units, and in combat operations in Haiti and Rwanda. Tr. at 22-31. Pl. Ex. 9. Before her retirement from the military in January 2004, Schroer was a Colonel assigned to the U.S. Special Operations Command, serving as the director of a 120-person classified organization that tracked and targeted high-threat international terrorist organizations. In this position, Colonel Schroer analyzed sensitive intelligence reports, planned a range of classified and conventional operations, and regularly briefed senior military and government officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tr. 32-33. At the time of her military retirement, Schroer held a Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearance, and had done so on a continuous basis since 1987. Tr. at 33. After her retirement, Schroer joined a private consulting firm, Benchmark International, where, then she applied for the CRS position, she was working as a program manager on an Case 1:05-cv-01090-JR Document 70 Filed 09/19/2008 Page 2 of 35 - 3 - infrastructure security project for the National Guard. Tr. at 36.(UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Civil Action No. 05-1090 (JR))
Federal judge rules that refusal to hire based on gender identity is sex discrimination
After a full trial (described in previous posts here and here), the judge found that Schroer should prevail on both of the legal theories offered by her lawyers. First, the judge found that there was "compelling evidence that the Library's hiring decision was infected by sex stereotypes." On that basis, Schroer was entitled to relief under the line of cases beginning with Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), which created the sex stereotyping doctine. In that case, the Court found that Title VII was violated when a woman was denied a job after being told to wear make-up and take a course at charm school. Evidence in the Schroer trial established that the negative reaction to Schroer grew out of her not fitting gender stereotypes by virtue of her decision to change genders.
More important was the second theory: that discrimination based on gender transition is literally discrimination based on sex. Schorer's lawyers argued, and the judge agreed, that gender identity is a component of sex and therefore discrimination based on gender identity is sex discrimination. This might sound like a simple proposition, but previous federal courts have "carved [transgender] persons out of the statute by concluding that 'transsexuality' is unprotected by Title VII."
The Schroer court held that just as discrimination against converts from one to faith to another is still discrimination based on religion, so too discrimination against transgender persons is still sex discrimination. Although doubtless Congress did not have transgender persons in mind when Title VII was enacted in 1964, the court found that the plain text of the statute covers this situation.(hunter of justice)
Federal Court Adopts Religious Conversion Analogy in Transgender Discrimination CaseThis is a BIG decision in favor of equal rights and to end employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression!
Thus, Robertson presented his interpretation as rooted in the plain text of Title VII, as a way of escaping from the “legislative history” approach that prior courts have taken. Title VII was enacted by Congress in 1964, at a time when the issue of transsexual discrimination was not discussed, and a straightforward proposal to protect transsexuals from discrimination at that time would have been a political non-starter had it been placed before Congress. Based on this historical perspective, courts have routinely relied on “congressional intent” to deny protection to transsexuals. But, Robertson pointed out, the Supreme Court has itself disavowed this approach to interpreting federal statutes.
…
… He also quoted Scalia’s statement from a decision holding that Title VII could apply to same-sex harassment claims: “Male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998).(Leonard Link)
Some of my other blog entries on Diane Schroer can be found here…
The Congressional "Examination of Discrimination Against Trangender Americans in the Workplace" Hearings
Congressional Hearing On Gender - Follow-up
This is a great acknowledgement indeed.
ReplyDelete