ST. LOUIS — A federal judge partially granted a motion for summary judgment in a case involving a transgender woman who sued the Department of Veterans Affairs for alleged sex discrimination.
Sherri Sickels, a transgender woman and former Marine, has been employed by the VA since 2008. She filed a lawsuit against the VA, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in 2021.
Sickels claimed she was repeatedly harassed, bullied and denied promotions due to her transgender status.
Despite identifying as a woman and requesting to wear a women's uniform, she was forced to wear a men's uniform.
Sickels also faced discriminatory comments from coworkers and supervisors, who referred to her with derogatory terms and opposed her presence in the workplace.
The plaintiff's applications for promotions were consistently rejected, often with questionable justifications, including an instance where her interview score was deliberately lowered by a supervisor who opposed her.
Sickels' complaint also includes allegations of retaliation after she reported discrimination, including an interview where she was questioned about her communication with a senator's office regarding unfair hiring practices.
The VA moved for summary judgment, arguing that Sickels failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims and that it had legitimate reasons for not promoting her.
The summary judgment focuses on whether there are genuine disputes about material facts that could affect the outcome of the case, allowing it to proceed to trial.
Sickels claims sex discrimination under Title VII, alleging that her non-selection for various job positions was based on her transgender status, contributing to a hostile work environment. The defendant argues that Sickels did not exhaust administrative remedies by failing to contact an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within the required 45 days of the alleged discriminatory actions.
Additionally, the defendant contends that Sickels has not properly alleged a hostile work environment claim, as her complaint does not specifically mention it.
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross wrote that the court agreed with the defendant that the hostile work environment claim would not survive summary judgment.
He noted that while Sickels points to various discriminatory actions, only her non-selection for specific vacancies is relevant to her claim and he acknowledges that the term "hostile work environment" is not an independent cause of action under Title VII, but a means to demonstrate discrimination or retaliation.
Regarding the sex discrimination claim, Sickels argues that comments made by her supervisor, and the actions of the interview panel show discriminatory intent.
Ross found that the supervisor's comments about Sickels' transgender status could suggest a discriminatory attitude. Additionally, the interview panel's decision to lower Sickels' score could be seen as a proximate cause of the adverse employment action, creating a genuine dispute of fact that should be considered by a jury. Thus, the court denies summary judgment on the sex discrimination claim based on these considerations.
A telephone status conference is scheduled for Aug. 21.
Ryan J. Mahoney of Mahoney Law Firm in Glen Carbon, Ill. is representing the plaintiff.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Karin A. Schute is representing the defendant.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division case number: 4:21-cv-00963