Tag Archives: Obergefell v. Hodges

ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, LBGT Employees

Yes, Kate Lynn, Gender Dysphoria Can Be a Disability

The popular press has touted as “unprecedented” a decision in May by a federal judge in Pennsylvania that a transgender employee could move forward with her suit for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

But the reality of Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, Inc., is not quite as novel as the press would suggest.  Rather than recognize being transgendered as a disability per se, the court simply acknowledged that Kate Lynn Blatt’s claim of “Gender Dysphoria, also known as Gender Identity Disorder,” which caused her severe physical and psychological distress, could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. rendered the decision carefully, to avoid ruling on Blatt’s constitutional challenge to the statutory language of the ADA, which expressly excludes from the definition of covered disabilities “homosexuality and bisexuality,” “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments,” and “sexual behavior disorders,” among other conditions.

Rather than determine whether such exclusions deny equal protection to individuals because of their sex, in violation of the Constitution and following the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Judge Leeson focused on the specific allegations in the complaint.  He noted that Blatt did not merely allege that she was disabled because she has gender dysphoria.  Instead, she specifically pled how the condition caused her clinically significant stress and other impairments that substantially limited her major life activities, including “interacting with others, reproducing and social and occupational functioning.”

The exclusions of the ADA are to be construed narrowly, Judge Leeson ruled, while conversely, the coverage of the ADA “must be broadly construed” to effect its purpose of “eliminate[ing] discrimination against the disabled in all facets of society.”  As such, her claim of a disability of gender identity disorder was allowed to proceed, despite the statute’s express exclusion of “gender identity disorders.”

No doubt that this is a victory for the transgendered community, because some claims of gender identity disorder may now proceed, despite the exclusion.  But at its heart, the ruling simply reaffirms an ADA basic: an employee claiming disability discrimination must identify how he or she is substantially limited in a major life activity.  Merely putting a label on the condition – such as “gender dysphoria” or “diabetic” — will not be dispositive for or against the claim.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLC. For more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard
Obergefell Ruling - What It Means for Employers, Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex Marriage Change Raises Three Key Points for Employers

Most Americans welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, which also simplifies things for employers, as they no longer have to navigate conflicting state laws on the issue.

But the work is not done for employers and their benefit plans.  In addition to the obvious step of updating/checking the definition of “spouse” in all benefit plans to keep up with this ruling – and last year’s United States v. Windsor decision — three new items should be addressed going forward:

  • Because the Obergefell ruling was based on constitutional protections, its holding is retroactive. Therefore both employers and employees may request a refund or adjustment of payroll taxes paid on imputed income for same-sex spousal benefit coverage for open tax years (usually three years back).
  • Employers should consider eliminating benefits for unmarried same-sex “domestic partners” (unless similar benefits are offered to opposite-sex partners), or else they could face reverse discrimination claims from employees in opposite-sex partnerships. This issue can get complicated in states like New Jersey, where “domestic partners” are protected under state law.
  • Employers that offer less paid time off for paternity leave than for maternity leave may want to consider how such a policy will play out for same-sex male couples. Similarly, employers and their plan providers may have to work through whether they fund in vitro fertilization treatments or surrogate pregnancies for same-sex couples.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLC. For more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard