Court allows sex bias claim of anatomical male with female self-image.

A sexual orientation discrimination case filed by an employee with male anatomy but a female self-image who was prohibited from using the women's rest room at work can move forward, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled. (Goins v. West Group, 619 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).)

The employee, Julienne Goins, was directed to use a single-occupancy restroom--which is not designated a men's or women's restroom--after coworkers expressed discomfort with Goins using the women's restroom because Goins is anatomically male. Goins refused, and the employer, West Group, threatened discipline if Goins continued to use the women's restroom. Goins then resigned, claiming the restroom policy created a stressful environment.

Goins's suit alleged that West Group violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The statute defines sexual orientation to include having a self-image not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness.

The appeals court reversed a district court decision granting the employer summary judgment. The lower court had refused to analyze the case as a direct claim of discrimination and, instead, applied the formula for indirect discrimination. Under this formula, Goins's legal counsel was required to show that Goins was qualified to use the women's rest room.

The district court found that this requirement was not met. The court reasoned that because Goins's birth certificate designated Goins as male and because Goins has not undergone surgery, Goins must be biologically male and, therefore, unqualified to use the women's rest room despite having a female self-image.

Disagreeing, the appeals court held the district court erred by applying the formula for indirect discrimination and misapplied the law. Writing for the court, Judge Terri Stoneburner said the district court held that Goins can only use the women's rest room by demonstrating anatomy consistent with self-image. However, Stoneburner emphasized, the statute "does not require an employee to eliminate an inconsistency between self-image and anatomy; it protects the employee from discrimination based on such an inconsistency."

Therefore, the court held, Goins made a prima facie case of direct discrimination under the statute by showing that West Group's denial of the use of a workplace facility was based on the inconsistency between Goins's self-image and anatomy.