A recent transgender discrimination investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) resulted in a $140,000 payout to a transgender employee after she was fired based on sex discrimination. Ellucian, a higher education technology services company located in Minnesota, refused to allow one of its employees access to her workplace on a college campus the day after she informed a co-worker that she planned to transition from male to female. The college where the employee was working asked Ellucian to remove the employee from their campus. Ellucian complied with the college’s request. The EEOC stated that this type of conduct violated Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination, including bias based on transgender status, gender stereotyping and subjecting an employee to different terms and conditions and/or hostile work environment because of sex.

The EEOC’s discrimination claim against Ellucian was resolved without the need for litigation. Ellucian settled this claim with the EEOC by agreeing to: (i) pay $140,000 to the employee; (ii) modify its code of conduct to include gender identity as a protected class in its anti-discrimination provisions; (iii) distribute the new code of conduct to all Ellucian employees; (iv) provide training for all of its U.S. employees on gender identity discrimination; (v) provide additional training and coaching for all Ellucian employees who may receive removal requests from clients; and (vi) report to the EEOC any removal requests made by clients for the next three years. The agreement made between the EEOC and Ellucian should serve as an example to other companies that the EEOC does not tolerate discrimination against transgender individuals. See EEOC’s May 5, 2016 Press Release.

This case follows a four-year-old decision in which the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination against employees because they are transgender is sex discrimination, which violates Title VII. Since the decision in 2012, the EEOC has made the rights of transgender individuals a priority by holding companies responsible for their discriminatory practices. For more information, see Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995, (April 20, 2012).