Not in Utah | Issue Letters | Advocate.com | Advocate.com

||  Letter  ||
"Equality for All? Not in Utah"

Thank you for your piece on Ariana Losco's efforts to pass a Utah law banning the kind of workplace discrimination that she endured ("Equality for All? Not in Utah," April 10, 2008). I write to clear up a legal misconception reflected in the article. The EEOC caseworker who told Ms. Losco that "post-op" transgender people have more rights than "pre-op" ones was mistaken. Many courts have ruled that existing sex discrimination laws protect transgender employees who don't conform to their employers' sex stereotypes, and these cases have not turned on the details of the employee's gender transition. Earlier this month, a federal court in Houston ruled that Lambda Legal's client Izza Lopez, a transgender woman, has a valid sex discrimination claim against an employer who withdrew a job offer because of Izza's feminine gender expression. Izza's anatomy was not relevant to the court's ruling. In short, transgender workers may seek legal protection regardless of their transition status. Of course, the best way to make employers aware of their legal obligations is by passing laws that include gender identity protections. Even though existing nondiscrimination laws do not limit their reach based on medical treatment alone, the confusion of the EEOC caseworker shows that clearly inclusive laws are preferable for the employer who wants to comply with the law and the employee who would rather have a job than a right to sue.

Cole Thaler, National Transgender Rights Attorney, Lambda Legal
Atlanta, Ga.
Write a letter to Advocate.com or The Advocate >