Minnesota Supreme Court Issues Transgender Decision
By: ANNE M. RADOLINSKI
April 2002
The Minnesota Supreme Court has issued a decision regarding transgender discrimination, overturning the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision discussed in a previous newsletter. (The Court of Appeals decision, if upheld, would have altered traditional notions of restroom, locker room and other facility designation based on biological gender, as well as our understanding of the parameters of transgender discrimination protections in Minnesota.) The Supreme Court's decision confirms that employers may continue to restrict restroom and locker room use based on biological gender. See Goins v. West Group.
The plaintiff, originally Justin Goins, began taking female hormones in 1994 and, by the summer of 1995, consistently dressed and otherwise presented herself as female. In the fall of 1995, Goins changed her legal name to Julienne Hannah Goins, and also changed her gender on her birth certificate and driver's license. Goins ultimately did not undergo gender transformation surgery.
Goins started with West Publishing in May 1997 in New York, relocating to its Eagan facility in October 1997. Her core complaint, upon transferring to Eagan, was about restroom use. West directed that she use either the facility's two single-occupancy restrooms or that she use the men's restroom. Goins challenged West's position, and occasionally used the women's restroom in violation of the company's direction. In November 1997, West warned Goins that she would be disciplined if she continued to use the women's restroom. In January 1998, Goins was offered a promotion and transfer. She resigned, however, indicating that West had "caused [her] undue stress and hostility."
Following her resignation, Goins instituted an action for sexual orientation discrimination and hostile work environment harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The District Court granted West's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Goins' claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court, in overturning the Court of Appeals decision, determined that the sexual orientation discrimination claims failed because West restricted bathroom use based on biological gender, not sexual orientation. The Supreme Court reasoned that to decide otherwise would lead to a result not envisioned by the legislature:
"To conclude that the MHRA ["Minnesota Human Rights Act"] contemplates restrictions on an employer's ability to designate restroom facilities based on biological gender would likely restrain employer discretion in the gender designation of workplace shower and locker room facilities, a result not likely intended by the legislature."
The Court similarly rejected Goins' claim of sexual orientation harassment because the claim was based on employee comments regarding her use of the female restroom. West's policy regarding restroom use itself could not be viewed as discriminatory. Moreover, the comments did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment necessary to sustain such a claim.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Goins, Minnesota employers may restrict the use of restrooms, locker rooms and similar facilities based on biological gender without risk of discrimination claims. Thus, a Minnesota employer may require a male employee who is contemplating or undergoing gender transformation to use the men's or unisex facilities until the surgery is completed. Employers operating outside of Minnesota should note that decisions in the transgender discrimination area are making their way through the courts in a number of states, and that the results may be dissimilar. Please do not hesitate to contact us for direction regarding transgender issues throughout the country.