|
In November, 2001, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a case called
Goins v. West Group (635 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2001)) that an
employer could legally assign restrooms based on an employee’s physical
anatomy. The court held that this was a distinction based on sex,
not on sexual orientation/gender identity. In particular, the
court held that the employer could require an employee it believed to be
anatomically male to use the men’s restroom, regardless of the fact that
the employee lived and worked full-time as a woman. However, the
court also ruled that the law did not require employers to do
this; employers may permit workers to use the restroom that
matches their gender presentation, irrespective of anatomy.
Since that time, both the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and
the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have concluded that simply
permitting transgender employees to use gender-appropriate restrooms is
not sexual harassment. (See Cruzan v. Special Sch. Dist. #1
[Minneapolis, MN], 294 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2002) (PDF file)) Also,
the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has determined that a
post-operative male-to-female transsexual was fully entitled to use a
women’s restroom.
The Goins decision leaves intact the fundamental protections
transgender people in Minnesota enjoy from discrimination on the basis
of their gender identity or expression. It remains against the law to
fire, refuse to hire, evict, deny service to, or in other ways
discriminate against a person based on the fact they're transgender. The
impact of the Goins decision will be felt in those relatively
limited areas where gender has historically been a consideration, such
as restrooms and locker rooms.
For more information, contact the OutFront
Minnesota Legal
Program at
or at (612) 822-0127, ext. 230.
|
