Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn v. Sewell R. Brumby

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
663 F.3d 1312 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by terminating a transgender employee for their gender non-conformity, as this constitutes sex-based discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny.

Facts:

Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn, a biological male who identifies as a woman, was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder in 2005.
In October 2005, Glenn was hired as an editor for the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC), which Sewell Brumby supervised.
In 2006, Glenn informed her direct supervisor that she was a transsexual and was in the process of transitioning.
On Halloween in 2006, Glenn came to work presenting as a woman. Brumby told her this was 'not appropriate' and 'unsettling' and asked her to leave.
Brumby later stated that he considered a man in women's clothing to be 'unnatural.'
In the fall of 2007, Glenn informed her supervisor that she was ready to proceed with her gender transition and would begin coming to work as a woman.
After being notified of Glenn's plans, Brumby terminated her employment.
Brumby stated he fired Glenn because he believed her gender transition was 'inappropriate,' would be 'disruptive,' and would make coworkers 'uncomfortable.'

Procedural Posture:

Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn sued Sewell Brumby in the U.S. District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging her termination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Glenn and Brumby filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Glenn on her sex discrimination claim and granted summary judgment to Brumby on a separate medical discrimination claim.
Brumby, as appellant, appealed the district court's ruling on the sex discrimination claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Glenn, as appellee and cross-appellant, cross-appealed the ruling on her medical condition claim.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a government official's termination of a transgender employee based on the employee's intent to transition and present as their identified gender constitute sex-based discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Barkett, Circuit Judge

Yes. Terminating a transgender employee based on their gender non-conformity is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that discrimination against an individual for failing to conform to gender stereotypes is discrimination 'because of sex,' a principle established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Because Glenn was fired for not conforming to the gender stereotypes associated with her biological sex, the termination was a form of sex discrimination. As a state action, this discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny, which requires the government to show that the classification is substantially related to a sufficiently important government interest. Brumby's justifications—that Glenn's transition was inappropriate, would be disruptive, and would make others uncomfortable—are based on stereotypes and do not constitute an important governmental interest. Brumby's post-hoc justification regarding restroom use was speculative, unsupported by evidence, and insufficient to survive heightened scrutiny.

Analysis:

This decision was a landmark ruling solidifying that discrimination against transgender individuals by government employers constitutes sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. By extending the gender-stereotyping theory from Title VII's statutory context (Price Waterhouse) to the constitutional context, the court established a high bar for government employers seeking to justify adverse actions against transgender employees. The ruling requires defendants to provide an 'exceedingly persuasive justification,' making it very difficult to defend such discrimination. This case significantly advanced LGBTQ+ rights and provided a crucial constitutional protection for transgender public employees prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn v. Sewell R. Brumby (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"