Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Glenn v. Brumby

663 F.3d 1312 (2011)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Glenn v. Brumby

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

663 F.3d 1312 (2011)

Facts

Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn (plaintiff) was born a biological male but was diagnosed with gender-identity disorder in 2005 and began taking steps to transition medically from male to female. In October of 2005, when Glenn was presenting as a man, Glenn was hired as an editor for the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC). On Halloween in 2006, Glenn came to work presenting as a woman. Sewell Brumby (defendant), the head of the OLC, told Glenn to leave the office because Glenn’s appearance was inappropriate. Brumby stated that it was “unsettling” and “unnatural” for Glenn to wear women’s clothing. Brumby subsequently met with Glenn’s supervisor and learned that Glenn would be undergoing a gender transition. In the fall of 2007, Glenn informed her supervisor that she was ready to proceed with the transition and planned to change her name and start coming to work as a woman. Glenn’s supervisor notified Brumby, and Brumby terminated Glenn because Brumby felt that the gender transition was “disruptive” and would make Glenn’s coworkers uncomfortable. Glenn sued Brumby, alleging that Brumby had engaged in sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brumby admitted that he had fired Glenn solely based on Glenn’s transition, but he claimed that he was motivated by a concern that women might object to Glenn’s use of the women’s restroom. The district court granted summary judgment to Glenn on her sex-discrimination claim, and Brumby appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Barkett, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership