Gendered Dress Codes

The extension of Title VII protection to transgender or gender non-conforming individuals has been addressed by a number of courts, which employers should note. See, e.g., Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2011) (accepting a claim bought by a transgender plaintiff who was fired because her supervisor believed that her gender transition would be “inappropriate” and “disruptive” and would make fellow employees “uncomfortable”); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (accepting a claim by a transgender woman who was told she was not masculine enough and was subjected to psychological testing and suspension); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (accepting a claim under the Equal Protection Clause that a prison guard assaulted a transgender prisoner based on assumptions about gender); Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000) (accepting a claim from a bank patron who was refused service because his gender presentation did not match his identification); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 300, 305 (D.D.C. 2008) (accepting a claim brought by a transgender plaintiff whose supervisor recoiled when shown a picture of what the employee would look like after transitioning).