Transgender Rights
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home鈥檚 owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee鈥檚 employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she鈥檚 transgender. We represented Aimee Stephens in front of the U.S. Supreme Court 鈥� and won.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Learn About Transgender Rights
All Cases
62 Transgender Rights Cases
Arizona
Dec 2023
Transgender Rights
Toomey v. State of Arizona
On January 23, 2019, the 糖心Vlog, and the 糖心Vlog of Arizona filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents for denying medically necessary, gender-affirming health care to transgender people employed by the state. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dr. Russell B. Toomey, an associate professor of family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, and all other transgender individuals employed by the Arizona Board of Regents or enrolled in the State health plan, including dependents.
Explore case
Arizona
Dec 2023
Transgender Rights
Toomey v. State of Arizona
On January 23, 2019, the 糖心Vlog, and the 糖心Vlog of Arizona filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents for denying medically necessary, gender-affirming health care to transgender people employed by the state. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dr. Russell B. Toomey, an associate professor of family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, and all other transgender individuals employed by the Arizona Board of Regents or enrolled in the State health plan, including dependents.
Washington
Oct 2023
Transgender Rights
Wetherell v. Alaska Airlines
Justin Wetherell is a nonbinary flight attendant and flight attendant instructor at Alaska Airlines. As a flight attendant, they have been required to comply with Alaska Airlines鈥� uniform and grooming policies that are grounded in outdated sex stereotypes and conflict with Justin鈥檚 nonbinary gender identity and fluid gender expression. Now Justin and the Washington State Human Rights Commission are fighting to ensure that Alaska Airlines鈥� uniform and grooming policy complies with the Washington State Law Against Discrimination and permits all employees to dress and groom in a professional manner that is consistent with their gender identity and expression.
Explore case
Washington
Oct 2023
Transgender Rights
Wetherell v. Alaska Airlines
Justin Wetherell is a nonbinary flight attendant and flight attendant instructor at Alaska Airlines. As a flight attendant, they have been required to comply with Alaska Airlines鈥� uniform and grooming policies that are grounded in outdated sex stereotypes and conflict with Justin鈥檚 nonbinary gender identity and fluid gender expression. Now Justin and the Washington State Human Rights Commission are fighting to ensure that Alaska Airlines鈥� uniform and grooming policy complies with the Washington State Law Against Discrimination and permits all employees to dress and groom in a professional manner that is consistent with their gender identity and expression.
Court Case
Jul 2023
Transgender Rights
Doe v. Madison Metropolitan School District
In February 2020, several parents anonymously sued the Madison Metropolitan School District in Wisconsin state court. The parents claim that the school district鈥檚 guidance that seeks to provide support for transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive students violates parental rights by allowing students to use names and pronouns at school different from those they were assigned at birth, without providing parental notification absent a student鈥檚 consent. The 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin intervened in the case on behalf of LGBTQ student groups at schools in the district to help defend the district鈥檚 guidance.
Explore case
Court Case
Jul 2023
Transgender Rights
Doe v. Madison Metropolitan School District
In February 2020, several parents anonymously sued the Madison Metropolitan School District in Wisconsin state court. The parents claim that the school district鈥檚 guidance that seeks to provide support for transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive students violates parental rights by allowing students to use names and pronouns at school different from those they were assigned at birth, without providing parental notification absent a student鈥檚 consent. The 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin intervened in the case on behalf of LGBTQ student groups at schools in the district to help defend the district鈥檚 guidance.
Court Case
Jun 2023
Transgender Rights
Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human Services
On May 31st, 2019, the 糖心Vlogof Iowa and National 糖心VlogLGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2023
Transgender Rights
Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human Services
On May 31st, 2019, the 糖心Vlogof Iowa and National 糖心VlogLGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.
Nebraska Supreme Court
May 2023
Transgender Rights
LGBTQ Rights
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers
In May 2023, the 糖心Vlog and the 糖心Vlogof Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The 糖心Vloghas asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law鈥檚 enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state鈥檚 argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.
Explore case
Nebraska Supreme Court
May 2023
Transgender Rights
LGBTQ Rights
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers
In May 2023, the 糖心Vlog and the 糖心Vlogof Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The 糖心Vloghas asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law鈥檚 enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state鈥檚 argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.