As a result, private employers may increasingly face lawsuits asserting gender identity discrimination claims and should revisit their policies– including employment, non-discrimination, and even dress code policies – to avoid the litigation of such claims.  Just last month, on April 1, 2015, Alexia (formerly “Anthony”) Daskalakis, a former employee of clothing retailer Forever 21, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of her gender, gender identity, gender expression and/or failure to conform to gender stereotypes.  Daskalakis, who was assigned male gender at birth, worked as a visual merchandiser at a Forever 21 store located in Brooklyn.  Daskalakis’s allegations arise from her manager’s conduct after she began transitioning to a woman.  The claims in Daskalakis v. Forever 21, Inc. are currently based on New York State and City non-discrimination laws, but the complaint indicates that plaintiff will file and/or seek leave to amend the complaint to include Title VII claims after receiving a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.

In another recent EEOC decision, Lusardi v. McHugh, Appeal No. 0120133395, Agency No. ARREDSTON11SEP05574 (EEOC Apr. 1, 2015), the EEOC found that the Department of the Army subjected the complainant-employee to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment.  In holding that denying the employee equal access to the common women’s restroom constituted disparate treatment, the EEOC wrote: “The decision to restrict Complainant to a ‘single shot’ restroom isolated and segregated her from other persons of her gender” . . . and “perpetuated the sense that she was not worthy of equal treatment and respect.”  Appeal No. 0120133395 at 13.  Notably, the EEOC stated that co-workers’ confusion or anxiety regarding sharing a restroom with a transgender individual would not justify discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.   Appeal No. 0120133395 at 10-11.  The EEOC found that the Department of the Army had subjected the employee to a hostile work environment because a team leader referred to the employee by male names and pronouns and made hostile remarks after being aware that the employee identified as female.  Appeal No. 0120133395 at 17.

While the Lusardi decision has no precedential effect for private employers, it is predictive of a potential enforcement position in the event of a transgendered employee’s charge of discrimination against a private employer.  Notably, the EEOC did not declare that in all situations an employer should designate the gender-corresponding common restroom for the transgender employee’s use, but rather that the employer should develop individualized transition plans appropriate for the employee’s circumstances.  Appeal No. 0120133395 at 10.  Such a transition might even “include a limited period of time where the employee opts to use a private facility instead of a common one.”  Id.

To reduce the risk of litigating claims of gender identity discrimination and retaliation, it is important for employers to confer with counsel to ensure that all policies comply with the employer’s obligations to transgender employees under Title VII.

[1] Macy v. Holder, Appeal No. 0120120821, Agency No. ATF-2011-00751 (EEOC, Apr. 20, 2012).

Last month, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a former employee of Forever 21 must try her claims against the retailer in arbitration, enforcing the company’s employment arbitration policy and reversing a lower court decision finding the agreement unconscionable under California law.  The plaintiff, Maribel Baltazar, alleged that she had been discriminated against by the retailer due to her race and sexually harassed by a supervisor and coworker.  She filed a complaint against Forever 21 and several of its employees in the Los Angeles Superior Court and the retailer moved to compel Baltazar to arbitration.

Reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeal found that Baltazar had been given the opportunity to review the arbitration agreement, which was contained in her employment contract, and that the contract’s provision allowing the parties to seek injunctive relief in court did not unduly favor Forever 21.  The panel noted that six of the claims asserted in Baltazar’s suit were brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), which authorizes injunctive relief, and that there was nothing to suggest that the employer would be more likely than the employee to seek provisional remedies.

Injunctive relief provisions have sounded the death knell for many employment arbitration agreements in California of late, with multiple appellate decisions citing an injunctive remedy as unduly favoring the employer.  Ostensibly, these courts are inclined to believe that an employer is more likely than an employee to seek injunctive relief.  The Baltazar court felt otherwise. Until this issue is considered by the California Supreme Court, it remains likely that the luck of the draw will ultimately decide whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable if it contains a provisional remedies provision that allows parties to seek an injunction in court.