Fourth Circuit Grants Gender Dysphoria Disability Protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

/in , ,

On August 16, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (covering Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) has become the first federal appellate court to find that gender dysphoria is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[1] The decision came after a transgender woman sued Fairfax County for housing her with men during her time in jail.

The court explained that “being transgender is not a disability,” but “many transgender people experience gender dysphoria.” Distinct from now-obsolete “gender identity disorders”[2] that the ADA excludes, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defines gender dysphoria as “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.” As the court explained, gender dysphoria “concerns itself primarily with distress and other disabling symptoms, rather than simply being transgender.” Excluding gender dysphoria from ADA protection, the court ruled, “would discriminate against transgender people as a class,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ADA requires employers, schools, and other businesses or organizations open to the public to provide reasonable accommodations to support people with disabilities. In the employment context, this decision allows employees experiencing gender dysphoria to request workplace accommodation from their employers. Additionally, those discriminated against for gender dysphoria may bring a claim under the ADA.

This ruling follows an increase in federal district courts’ endorsement of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under federal anti-discrimination law. Even so, the law is constantly evolving in this area, and you should contact an attorney to see how this ruling—or the ADA in general—applies to you. Our experienced employment law attorneys are happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options in light of this new ruling.

NOTES:

[1] Williams v. Kincaid, No. 21-2030, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22728 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022).

[2] The APA removed “gender identity disorder” from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders nearly a decade ago.

NPR Details Struggle Workers Face as a Result of Long COVID

/in , ,

We have discussed Long COVID here before. In an important article, NPR discussed the latest updates on Long COVID and its impact on workers. The article also discusses disability laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and how they interact with employees experiencing Long COVID.

Long COVID is an increasingly important issue facing Americans and employees. Check out the article and contact us if you have questions about Long COVID, employment law or disability law.

Governor Walz’s Recent COVID-19 Order Gives Employees Important Rights

/in , , , ,

On May 13, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Executive Order 20-54, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Among other things, the Governor’s executive order provides rights to Minnesota employees that all workers should be aware of.

First, the executive order prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees who ask their employers questions or expresses concerns about COVID-19 (the Coronavirus), or their health and safety regarding the virus outbreak.

Second, the executive order generally prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees who wear gloves, cloth, eye protection, or other protective gear in the course of their work.

Third, the executive order gives employees the right to refuse to work under conditions that they, in good faith, reasonably believe pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Fourth, the executive order gives employees the right to request the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (“DLI”) conduct an inspection of their workplace if they suspect a COVID-19 threat to health and/or safety is present.

Lastly, the executive order gives employees the right to seek reasonable accommodations related to COVID-19, including the ability to work from home, if possible.

All of these protections contain important caveats, so if you have questions about Executive Order 20-54, or COVID-19 at work, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer.

If you are an employee who has experienced difficult circumstances with your employer related to COVID-19, we are here to help. Please contact Teske, Katz, Kitzer, and Rochel, PLLP. We advocate on behalf of employees facing discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower related issues in the workplace.

Favorable Settlement Changes City of Minneapolis Policies for Disabled Workers

/in , ,

On December 22, 2017, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel finalized a settlement agreement in Stewart, et al. v. The City of Minneapolis, an employment discrimination class action lawsuit. The agreement included significant policy changes that benefit City of Minneapolis employees who are or become disabled.

Laurence Stewart, the named plaintiff, is a former employee of Minneapolis in its Public Works Department. Stewart sought classwide relief for himself and all other similar employees. The Complaint alleged that the City’s return to work policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) because it failed to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled workers.

The settlement agreement provides that the City will now conduct multiple assessments for reasonable accommodations for all employees who are eligible for its Return to Work Job Bank.

A full press release with details of the policy changes and copy of the Amended Complaint are available here:

Here is a previous post regarding the Stewart v. City of Minneapolis litigation.

Mr. Stewart is represented by Brian Rochel and Marisa Katz of Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel is an employment and class action law firm representing employees in Minnesota and across the country.

For more information, or if you have questions about this lawsuit, contact Brian Rochel at (612) 767-0520 or at rochel@kitzerrochel.com.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel Brings Class Action Employment Lawsuit against City of Minneapolis

/in , ,

On January 6, 2017, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel initiated Stewart, et al. v. The City of Minneapolis, a class action employment lawsuit. The suit is brought in Minnesota District Court, Fourth District–Hennepin County.

Laurence Stewart, the named plaintiff, is a former employee of Minneapolis in its Public Works Department. Stewart seeks classwide relief for himself and all other similar employees. The Complaint alleges that the City’s return to work policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) because it fails to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled workers.

Mr. Stewart is represented by Brian Rochel, Marisa Katz and Douglas Micko, of Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel is a class action and employment law firm with decades of experience around the country.

For more information, or if you have been terminated by the City of Minneapolis and have questions about this lawsuit, contact Brian Rochel here or via email at rochel@kitzerrochel.com.

A full press release and copy of the Complaint that has been served are available here:

Press Release

Stewart v. Minneapolis Complaint

Phillip Kitzer, Brian Rochel, and Doug Micko Present on Intersection of Disability, FMLA, and Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Laws

/in ,

On October 26, 2015, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel partners Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel presented a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar on the intersection between disability discrimination laws under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) and the American’s With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and Workers’ Compensation retaliation (“WCA”).  The presentation was moderated by Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel partner Doug Micko, and addressed the complicated legal considerations faced by both employers and employees when an employee has a workplace injury or disability.  The  presentation was made as part of Minnesota CLE’s Employment Law Webcast Series.

To learn more about the disability discrimination, your rights under the FMLA, or your rights under workers’ compensation retaliation, please contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel Defeats Pretrial Motion to Dismiss, Court Limits Karst Ruling

/in , , ,

In Jason Lindner v. Donatelli Bros. of White Bear Lake d/b/a Donatelli’s, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lindner’s retaliation claim. In an important opinion of first impression, the court held that Karst v. F.C. Hayer Co, 447 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1989), which bars discrimination claims in certain cases, does not apply to retaliation or reprisal claims.  The court noted that “a reprisal claim is fundamentally different [than a disability claim] – such a claim is predicated not on an employer’s injury (or disability), but rather on his or her conduct.” Lindner’s claims will now proceed to trial before a federal jury.

Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel represent Plaintiff Jason Lindner in the employment retaliation and discrimination lawsuit.