On August 15, 2014, a transgender woman from Pennsylvania filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff sued Cabela’s Retail, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., and the Americans with ...
read more >
On August 15, 2014, a transgender woman from Pennsylvania filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff sued Cabela’s Retail, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (“ADA”). The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. She claimed that she has been harmed by the defendant’s discriminatory employment practices. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that due to her transgender status, she was harassed by her co-workers and subjected to hateful comments, was refused consideration for promotions and was forced to work alone in undesirable shifts. Although the plaintiff reported these incidents to higher ups in the company, it always fell on deaf ears. The Human Resources Director at the company would not even allow her to wear a name tag with her chosen female name or to use the women’s bathroom in the store. The plaintiff was eventually dismissed from her position, despite excellent job performance. The plaintiff argued that her bad treatment constituted sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII, and disability discrimination, in violation of the ADA. She further argued that 42 U.S.C. § 12211(b)--which excludes gender identity disorder from coverage by the ADA--is unconstitutional.
On October 22, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss but after the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the court rejected the dismissal motion as moot.
On November 18, 2014, the defendant filed a new partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Subsequently, on February 10, 2015, the case was reassigned from Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl to Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.
Meanwhile, on January 22, 2015 the plaintiff informed the United States that she was challenging the constitutionality of the Gender Identity Disorder ("GID") exclusion provision of the ADA. That provision excludes "transexualism...[and] gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairment" from the ADA definition of a disability. The United States responded with a Statement of Interest; it stated that the District Court should resolve the plaintiff's Title VII claims before addressing the constitutional challenge, because wherever possible, courts should seek to avoid adjudication of constitutional challenges. On February 23, 2015 six prominent LGBTQ advocacy organizations urged the court to invalidate the GID exclusion as unconstitutional or alternatively to find that gender dysphoria is outside the scope of the GID exclusion.
Judge Leeson was apparently unpersuaded by the U.S.'s constitutional avoidance argument; on September 21, 2015, he ordered the United States to file a supplemental statement of interest actually addressing the constitutionality of the ADA's GID exclusion. Finally, on November 16, 2015, the United States filed a second Statement of Interest which argued that the District Court should adopt the construction that gender dysphoria, because it has a physical cause, falls outside the scope of the GID exclusion provision, allowing gender dysphoria to be included under the ADA's definition of "disability". This construction again allowed the District Court to avoid addressing the constitutionality of the GID exclusion provision itself.
The last action on the case was on March 1, 2016, where magistrate judge Henry S. Perkin held a settlement conference, however the details of that conference are unavailable.Matt Ramirez - 05/20/2016