As Transgender Awareness Week 2012 (November 12-19) concludes, today we feature three of our heroic clients who’ve made our work to end discrimination against transgender people possible. Not only have our clients been willing to stand up against discrimination, but they’ve also taken on the challenge of teaching others – legislators, judges and the general public – what it means to be transgender and the challenges transgender people face. The following people have helped make our transgender rights work possible in the areas of employment discrimination and identification documents. The LGBT community has seen astounding progress, but a great deal of work still needs to be done to secure greater understanding and acceptance along with basic legal protections for transgender Americans for whom discrimination is still commonplace.
Diane Schroer -- Employment Discrimination
“After retiring from the Army, I decided to acknowledge Diane and say goodbye to David. It wasn’t an easy choice, it wasn’t courage or madness. Just something that I needed to do.” – Diane Schroer. For more on her story, see the video below:
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
Close to half of respondents in reported being fired, not hired, or denied a promotion because of being transgender/gender non-conforming. The ACLU has represented transgender clients who have faced gender-based discrimination in the workplace.
In the case of Diane Schroer v. Library of Congress, the ACLU represented a highly decorated military veteran who thought she had found a perfect fit when she was offered a terrorism research position with the Library of Congress – until they rescinded her job offer when she told her future supervisor that she was in the process of a gender transition. In a groundbreaking decision issued in September 2008, a federal judge ruled that discriminating against someone for changing genders is sex discrimination under federal law. Schroer was awarded $500,000 in compensation by the government.
Diane’s case and her story have illustrated the crucial need for laws and legal precedents to protect transgender people from losing their jobs because they are transgender.
Hayden Nevill & Lauren Grey - Identification Documents
“Without consistency [in ID documents], you are flagged as a security risk. You’re treated differently when you give someone a document that has an opposite gender marker than how you present.” – Lauren Grey. For more on her story, see the video below:
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
With an increasing demand that we show official identification documents to enter public and private buildings, apply for a job, and vote, it has become more important than ever before to hold accurate identification documents. Moreover, restrictions on correcting the gender on identification documents have presented a unique set of problems for transgender Americans. In a , 40 percent of those who present ID that did not match their gender identity/expression reported being harassed while 15 percent reported being asked to leave, and 3 percent reported being attacked or assaulted. Hayden Nevill and Lauren Grey both sued state agencies that restricted their ability to correct the gender on their identification documents.
In Nevill v. Alaska DMV/K.L. v. Alaska DMV, Hayden Nevill, a transgender veterinarian in Fairbanks, AK, was one of three clients to challenge Alaska’s restrictions on correcting the gender on your driver’s license. In an op-ed published in the Anchorage Daily News (and re-posted on this blog) earlier this year, Nevill wrote about how transgender people often have to struggle or disclose private information just to get driver’s licenses and other identification documents that match who they are:
I'm a professional who travels for work. I am a guy. I have a deep voice and a receding hairline. No one meeting me ever mistakes me for female. My passport says I'm male. My Alaska driver's license has my current name and recent photo, but still says 'F'.
How does this affect me? I carry my passport everywhere, using it for ID when everyone else uses a driver's license. That works fine when I'm presenting my ID on a job site, except when I need to drive a company vehicle or rent a car. Then I'm faced with a confused clerk who may or may not accept my driver's license as valid. If I have to explain medical reasons why my documents don't match, at best it's a conversation that invades my privacy and is uncomfortable for everyone involved. At worst, it exposes me to possible discrimination or suffering physical violence.
To fix the Alaska DMV’s flawed policy that required those who seek to change the gender marker on their driver’s license submit proof of a sex reassignment surgery, ACLU filed a lawsuit, K.L. v. Alaska DMV, on behalf of a transgender woman, K.L., whose U.S. passport and work documents all identify her as a female. After initially securing a change to the gender on her driver’s license, she was told that her new license would be revoked unless she submitted proof of having surgery. Later, Nevill and another client served as clients in a separate case seeking the same result. Following a court ruling in the K.L. case finding that denying accurate identification documents violated the privacy rights of transgender Alaskans, the DMV removed the requirement for surgery or any other specific medical intervention to correct the gender on a driver’s license as of August 2012.
Meanwhile, in another part of the country, Lauren Grey also fought for the right to accurate identification documents in Grey v. Arnold. In May 2011, Lauren Grey and two other clients challenged the Illinois Department of Public Health’s requirement that persons born in Illinois undergo genital surgery before they could change the gender on their birth certificates. In October 2012, the court approved an enforceable agreement to prevent the Department from reinstating this requirement and ensuring that people will no longer have to complete surgeries that may not be available or medically necessary for them.
Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.