Filed Date: June 4, 2015
Closed Date: Jan. 20, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of a transgender woman who alleged that she had been discriminated against by her former employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The EEOC alleged violations of Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) and sought monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the complainant. The case was assigned to Judge Ann Montgomery.
The EEOC claimed that the complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment and received disparate treatment because of her sex, gender preferences, and condition of gender dysphoria. They alleged that the defendant would not allow the complainant to use common female restrooms, and its HR department implied that undergoing genital reconstruction surgery was the only condition under which she would be allowed to do so. The complainant believed that this inquiry about the details of her genitalia was an invasion of privacy. On numerous occasions and using multiple forms of proof, the complainant also requested a change of her name and sex in internal records. After some hassle and delay, only some records were changed. This incomplete change of records resulted in, for example, outside merchants referring to complainant by her former male name.
The EEOC also alleged that the complainant was regularly referred to in a demeaning and derogatory manner by coworkers, and though she requested intervention, the defendant did not investigate her claims or issue any discipline. For example, coworkers and managers continually misgendered the complainant, used her former male name, and said that she looked like “Tarzan".
The defendant’s employee health insurance plan also contained a clause that categorically excluded all health benefits having to do with gender transition to transgender persons, regardless of medical necessity. Only if the individual’s gender did not match what was on the initial form would these benefits be denied - theoretically, a non-transgender person could be covered for similar treatments. As a result, the complainant paid for hormone therapy and blood level tests out of pocket.
The complainant announced her intention to transition and began presenting herself as female in November 2010, three years into her tenure with the employer. She began hormone therapy just two months later and provided documentation of a legal name change in February 2011. In June of 2011, she presented a doctor’s note confirming her diagnosis of gender dysphoria and a driver’s license with her sex listed as female.
The complainant’s employment with Deluxe Financial ended in July 2011. On her penultimate day of work, the defendant learned that plaintiff filed a discrimination claim with the EEOC. An HR representative then demanded that she sign a release as part of a severance package, but the plaintiff refused.
In October 2014, the parties began engaging in settlement negotiations. Shortly after, the complainant filed an uncontested motion to intervene as a plaintiff. On October 20, 2014, the court granted the complainant's motion.
On January 20, 2016, the court approved a consent decree in which the defendant agreed to pay $115,000 ($40,000 of which covered attorney’s fees and $75,000 of which was paid directly to the complainant), alter records regarding the plaintiff’s employment, and improve workplace policies and practices. Further, the defendant agreed to issue a letter of apology to the complainant, not mention her prior legal name or lawsuit details in a reference, and to ensure that records show that she was laid off, not fired. More generally, the defendant agreed to hire an outside consultant to revise policies to reflect, among other things: a clear commitment to preventing discrimination based on gender dysphoria and transgender status; encouragement of reporting discrimination; and an assurance that the defendant will investigate allegations of discrimination. All supervising employees would then be trained annually on these commitments to ensure compliance. The defendant further committed to complying fully with employee requests for name and biographical data changes, and to allow transgender employees unhindered access to restrooms without inquiring into medical history and documentation. With the employee health plan, the defendant agreed to eliminate partial or categorical exclusions for otherwise medically necessary care solely on the basis of sex and gender dysphoria. This applied to any care that was currently available to non-transgender persons, including hormone therapy.
The consent decree was set to last for three years. There has been no docket activity since the entry of the decree in 2016, so the case is presumably closed.
Summary Authors
Dan Hofman (2/25/2016)
Hope Brinn (5/14/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13311068/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-deluxe-financial-services-inc/
Halpern, Iris (Colorado)
Imdieke, Michael H. (Colorado)
Brandt, Angela Beranek (Minnesota)
Gaulding, Jill R. (Minnesota)
Hall, Christy L. (Minnesota)
Montgomery, Ann D. (Minnesota)
Rau, Steven E. (Minnesota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13311068/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-deluxe-financial-services-inc/
Last updated July 2, 2023, 3:12 a.m.
State / Territory: Minnesota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 4, 2015
Closing Date: Jan. 20, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
EEOC and a transgender woman who underwent her transition while employed.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. (Shoreview, Ramsey), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $115,000
Order Duration: 2016 - 2019
Content of Injunction:
Expungement of Employment Record
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis:
Affected Sex or Gender:
EEOC-centric: