Tamara Lusardi v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
2015 WL 1607756, Appeal No. 012013395 (2015)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Tamara Lusardi (plaintiff) was employed at the United States Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (the agency) under Secretary John M. McHugh (defendant). In 2007 Lusardi informed her supervisor that she was going to begin the gender-transitioning process to live as a woman. In 2010 Lusardi legally changed her name and sex and spoke with two supervisors about a gender-transition plan. At the meeting, Lusardi and the supervisors agreed that Lusardi would use the private executive restroom rather than the woman’s restroom to allow the other employees time to adjust to Lusardi’s new gender. Lusardi used the executive restroom except for a few occasions when it was out of order or being cleaned. In these instances, Lusardi used the women’s restroom and was disciplined by her supervisors. Lusardi was then informed by her supervisors that she would not be permitted to use the women’s restroom until she had undergone surgery to become biologically female and that, as part of her gender-transition plan, she had to obtain approval prior to accessing the women’s restroom. Lusardi filed a Title VII sex-discrimination complaint with the agency. The agency found that Lusardi had failed to prove sex discrimination because requiring employees to use the restroom associated with their sex did not constitute an adverse employment action that violated Title VII. Lusardi appealed the agency’s decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.