Schroer case shows why we need ENDA

After four years of fighting in court under the last Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice decided last month not to appeal Diane Schroer’s landmark victory in her discrimination suit against the Library of Congress. Diane, a U.S. Army Special Forces veteran and counterterrorism expert, was offered a position at the Library for which she highly qualified, only to have that offer rescinded on the basis of her gender transition.

The decision not to appeal was not really a surprise, coming as it did only days after a White House memorandum that is expected to lead to clearer protections for transgender federal employees. What happened to Diane should never have happened in the first place. Like the rapidly growing number of private employers with explicit nondiscrimination policies on the subject, most federal officials making hiring decisions today would realize that a person’s gender identity or expression is irrelevant to their ability to serve their government. They would realize that what happened to Diane is exactly the kind of irrational, non-merit- based discrimination that the Civil Service Act has long prohibited. Indeed, Diane wouldn’t have been the first out transgender person to work for a federal agency, or even for the Library of Congress.

But the blatant discrimination Diane experienced did happen, and that’s not surprising either. Most employers, even large ones, don’t yet have clear antidiscrimination policies, nor do most states or cities. Even with public and private employers alike increasingly recognizing that gender identity is irrelevant in the workplace, there are outliers, managers who are motivated to discriminate by ignorance or bias. That’s why, even with Diane Schroer winning in court, we need clear guidelines for the federal workforce. It’s why, ultimately, we need ENDA: to set a clear, consistent, national policy that in this country we do not discriminate based on gender identity, any more than we discriminate on the basis of religion, age, race, or disability. Passing ENDA won’t end discrimination once and for all – there will still be lawsuits like Diane’s. But it will establish unambiguously what most Americans already believe: that this kind of discrimination is never acceptable.

One Response to Schroer case shows why we need ENDA

  1. Michelle says:

    While legislation is an important first step – one that stops blatant discrimination. It does not change subtle discrimination. I’ve worked for the same company for over 10 years and have always received high marks from both the project teams I led and the business owners/sponsors – until my transition. On 14 April of this year, as part of my transition, my name was legally changed. I got great support from HR, no problems using the women’s bathroom and generally very good ‘apparent’ acceptance from co-workers. But gradually, I noticed that I was being cut out of the decision making loop and then when things went wrong, I got the blame. Making a case for discrimination would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. But the realities is that a case for my dismissal is being put together. More layoffs are expected here this year and I fully expect to be included in the next round. My experience is far from unique – rather, it seems to be the norm in companies with active gender discrimination policies. The sad part is I don’t think it is even deliberate!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: