Schroer v. Billington

Citation577 F.Supp.2d 293
Decision Date19 September 2008
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 05-1090 (JR).
PartiesDiane J. SCHROER, Plaintiff, v. James H. BILLINGTON, Librarian of Congress, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Arthur B. Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, James D. Esseks, Kenneth Y. Choe, Sharon M. Mcgowan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Beverly Maria Russell, Julia Douds, U.S. Attorney's Office, Evelio Rubiella, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.

Diane Schroer claims that she was denied employment by the Librarian of Congress because of sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Evidence was taken in a bench trial on August 19-22, 2008.

Facts

Diane Schroer is a male-to-female transsexual. Although born male, Schroer has a female gender identity—an internal, psychological sense of herself as a woman. Tr. at 37. In August 2004, before she changed her legal name or began presenting as a woman, Schroer applied for the position of Specialist in Terrorism and International Crime with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress. The terrorism specialist provides expert policy analysis to congressional committees, members of Congress and their staffs. Pl.Ex. 1. The position requires a security clearance.

Schroer was well qualified for the job. She is a graduate of both the National War College and the Army Command and General Staff College, and she holds masters degrees in history and international relations. During Schroer's twenty-five years of service in the U.S. Armed Forces, she held important command and staff positions in the Armored Calvary, Airborne, Special Forces and Special Operations Units, and in combat operations in Haiti and Rwanda. Tr. at 22-31. Pl.Ex. 9. Before her retirement from the military in January 2004, Schroer was a Colonel assigned to the U.S. Special Operations Command, serving as the director of a 120-person classified organization that tracked and targeted high-threat international terrorist organizations. In this position, Colonel Schroer analyzed sensitive intelligence reports, planned a range of classified and conventional operations, and regularly briefed senior military and government officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tr. 32-33. At the time of her military retirement, Schroer held a Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearance, and had done so on a continuous basis since 1987. Tr. at 33. After her retirement, Schroer joined a private consulting firm, Benchmark International, where, when she applied for the CRS position, she was working as a program manager on an infrastructure security project for the National Guard. Tr. at 36.

When Schroer applied for the terrorism specialist position, she had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and was working with a licensed clinical social worker, Martha Harris, to develop a medically appropriate plan for transitioning from male to female. Tr. at 36-38. The transitioning process was guided by a set of treatment protocols formulated by the leading organization for the study and treatment of gender identity disorders, the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. Pl.Ex. 45; Tr. at 193. Because she had not yet begun presenting herself as a woman on a full-time basis, however, she applied for the position as "David J. Schroer," her legal name at the time. In October 2004, two months after submitting her application, Schroer was invited to interview with three members of the CRS staff—Charlotte Preece, Steve Bowman, and Francis Miko. Preece, the Assistant Director for Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade, was the selecting official for the position. Tr. at 103. Schroer attended the interview dressed in traditionally masculine attire—a sport coat and slacks with a shirt and tie. Tr. at 45.

Schroer received the highest interview score of all eighteen candidates. Pl.Ex. 18. In early December, Preece called Schroer, told her that she was on the shortlist of applicants still in the running, and asked for several writing samples and an updated list of references. Tr. at 49. After receiving these updated materials, the members of the selection committee unanimously recommended that Schroer be offered the job. Tr. at 105. In mid-December, Preece called Schroer, offered her the job, and asked, before she processed the administrative paper work, whether Schroer would accept it. Tr. at 108. Schroer replied that she was very interested but needed to know whether she would be paid a salary comparable to the one she was currently receiving in the private sector. The next day, after Preece confirmed that the Library would be able to offer comparable pay, Schroer accepted the offer, and Preece began to fill out the paperwork necessary to finalize the hire. Id.

Before Preece had completed and submitted these documents, Schroer asked her to lunch on December 20, 2004. Schroer's intention was to tell Preece about her transsexuality. She was about to begin the phase of her gender transition during which she would be dressing in traditionally feminine clothing and presenting as a woman on a full-time basis. She believed that starting work at CRS as a woman would be less disruptive than if she started as a man and later began presenting as a woman. Tr. at 53.

When Schroer went to the Library for this lunch date, she was dressed in traditionally masculine attire. Before leaving to walk to a nearby restaurant, Preece introduced her to other staff members as the new hire who would soon be coming aboard. Preece also gave Schroer a short tour of the office, explaining where her new colleagues' offices were and describing Schroer's job responsibilities. Tr. at 56. As they were sitting down to lunch, Preece stated that they were excited to have Schroer join CRS because she was "significantly better than the other candidates." Id. Schroer asked why that was so, and Preece explained that her skills, her operational experience, her ability creatively to answer questions, and her contacts in the military and in defense industries made her application superior. Tr. at 56; 110.

About a half hour into their lunch, Schroer told Preece that she needed to discuss a "personal matter." Tr. at 57. She began by asking Preece if she knew what "transgender" meant. Preece responded that she did, and Schroer went on to explain that she was transgender, that she would be transitioning from male to female, and that she would be starting work as "Diane." Preece's first reaction was to ask, "Why in the world would you want to do that?" Tr. at 57, 110. Schroer explained that she did not see being transgender as a choice and that it was something she had lived with her entire life. Preece then asked her a series of questions, starting with whether she needed to change Schroer's name on the hiring documentation. Schroer responded that she did not because her legal name, at that point, was still David. Schroer went on to explain the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care and her own medical process for transitioning. She told Preece that she planned to have facial feminization surgery in early January and assured her that recovery from this surgery was quick and would pose no problem for a mid-January start date. In the context of explaining the Benjamin Standards of Care, Schroer explained that she would be living full-time as a woman for at least a year before having sex reassignment surgery. Such surgery, Schroer explained, could normally be accomplished during a two-week vacation period and would not interfere with the requirements of the job. Tr. at 59.

Preece then raised the issue of Schroer's security clearance, asking what name ought to appear on hiring documents. Schroer responded that she had several transgender friends who had retained their clearances while transitioning and said that she did not think it would be an issue in her case. Schroer also mentioned that her therapist would be available to answer any questions or provide additional background as needed. Tr. at 60. Because Schroer expected that there might be some concern about her appearance when presenting as a woman, she showed Preece three photographs of herself, wearing traditionally feminine professional attire. Although Preece did not say it to Schroer, her reaction on seeing these photos was that Schroer looked like "a man dressed in women's clothing." Tr. at 112. Preece did not ask Schroer whether she had told her references or anyone at Benchmark of her transition.

Although Schroer initially thought that her conversation with Preece had gone well, she thought it "ominous" that Preece ended it by stating "Well, you've given me a lot to think about. I'll be in touch." Tr. at 63.

Preece did not finish Schroer's hiring memorandum when she returned to the Library after lunch. See Pl.Ex. 23.1 Instead, she went to speak with Cynthia Wilkins, the personnel security officer for the Library of Congress. Preece told Wilkins that she had just learned that the candidate she had planned to recommend for the terrorism specialist position would be transitioning from male to female and asked what impact that might have on the candidate's ability to get a security clearance. Tr. at 120. Wilkins did not know and said that she would have to look into the applicable regulations. Preece told Wilkins that the candidate was a 25-year military veteran. She did not recall whether or not she mentioned that Schroer currently held a security clearance. Preece did not provide, and Wilkins did not ask for, the sort of information—such as Schroer's full name and social security number—that would have allowed Wilkins access to information on Schroer's clearance history. Had Preece requested her to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., Civil No. 4:15cv54
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 22 d2 Maio d2 2018
    ...(D. Conn. 2016) ; Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc. , 542 F.Supp.2d 653, 660 (S.D. Tex. 2008) ; Schroer v. Billington , 577 F.Supp.2d 293, 305 (D.D.C. 2008). Accordingly, allegations of gender stereotyping are cognizable Title VII sex discrimination claims and, by extensio......
  • Bd. of Educ. of the Highland Local Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., Case No. 2:16-CV-524
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 26 d1 Setembro d1 2016
    ...words, courts have allowed their focus on the label "transsexual" to blind them to the statutory language itself.Schroer v. Billington, 577 F.Supp.2d 293, 306–07 (D.D.C.2008).9 For instance, in Johnston v. University of Pittsburgh of Commonwealth System of Higher Education, a district court......
  • Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. of Ind., 15-1720
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 4 d2 Abril d2 2017
    ...Salem, Ohio , 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) ; Fabian v. Hosp. of Cent. Conn. , 172 F.Supp.3d 509 (D. Conn. 2016) ; Schroer v. Billington , 577 F.Supp.2d 293, 308 (D.D.C. 2008).This is not to say that authority to the contrary does not exist. As we acknowledged at the outset of this opinion, ......
  • Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 16-3522
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 30 d2 Maio d2 2017
    ...Mich. 2015) ; Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc. , 542 F.Supp.2d 653, 660 (S.D. Tex. 2008) ; Schroer v. Billington , 577 F.Supp.2d 293, 305 (D.D.C. 2008). Further, courts have applied Price Waterhouse and found that transgender plaintiffs can state claims based upon a sex-s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • The EEOC Opens The Door To Title VII Protection For Transgender Employees
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 2 d3 Maio d3 2012
    ...of Title VII); and Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 239 (1989)). 8 Macy, at 7-11. 9 Macy, at 12. 10 Macy, at 13 (quoting Schroer, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 306 (D.D.C. 11 Macy, at 14 n.16 (expressly overturning "any contrary earlier decisions from the Commission," and citing Casoni v. United States......
23 books & journal articles
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part V. Discrimination In Employment
    • 27 d3 Julho d3 2016
    ...Andersen & Co. , 566 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977); but see Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566, supra ; Schroer v. Billington , 577 F.Supp 2d 293, 306 (D.D.C. 2008). Not surprisingly, being perceived as homosexual also does not constitute a protected classification under the law. In Mims......
  • Protecting Transgender Youth After Bostock: Sex Classification, Sex Stereotypes, and the Future of Equal Protection.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 No. 4, February 2023
    • 1 d3 Fevereiro d3 2023
    ...that "she was terminated because of her gender transition and her failure to conform to gender stereotypes"); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 304 (D.D.C. 2008) (explaining that "[s]ex stereotyping based on a person's gender nonconforming behavior is impermissible discrimination"......
  • State regulation of sexual harassment
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023
    • 1 d0 Janeiro d0 2023
    ...(holding that transgender persons, like all people, are protected from sex discrimination under Title VII); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 305 (D.D.C. 2008) (holding that turning down a transgender person for employment violated Title VII); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566,......
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • 16 d6 Agosto d6 2014
    ...Andersen & Co. , 566 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977); but see Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566, supra ; Schroer v. Billington , 577 F.Supp 2d 293, 306 (D.D.C. 2008). Not surprisingly, being perceived as homosexual also does not constitute a protected classification under the law. In Mims......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT