Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

U.S. District Court in Nevada Continues Trend of Expansion of the Definition of “Sex” Under Title VII

By Alessandro G. Villanella on October 28, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A transgender police officer, who identifies as a male officer, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging sex discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and related state law. Roberts v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138329 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2016).  Rather than being allowed to use the bathroom of the gender with which he identifies, the School District required Plaintiff to use a gender-neutral, single-person bathroom.

The Plaintiff and Defendant cross-moved for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim brought pursuant to Title VII.  Defendant argued that Title VII prohibits only discrimination based on biological sex, not gender identity (which is not specifically listed as a protected category under the statute).  The U.S. District Court, expanding the reach of the protected category of “sex,” denied Defendant’s motion and granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Title VII claim. The court relied upon other appellate court rulings to hold that that sex stereotypes are included within Title VII’s protection of “sex.”  Specifically, the District Court held that “discrimination against a person based on transgender status is discrimination ‘because of sex’ under Title VII.”

Both the EEOC and now, an increasing number of courts and circuits, are interpreting Title VII’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination to include gender identity and gender stereotyping issues.  Accordingly, employers carefully should consider their bathroom and related policies that may draw distinctions based upon an employee’s gender – particularly those employers that operate in states without state laws that specifically include gender identity as a protected category.

Photo of Alessandro G. Villanella Alessandro G. Villanella
Read more about Alessandro G. VillanellaEmail
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    The EPL Advisor
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo