X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
One side says the case is about sex discrimination. The other says it’s simple stereotyping. Now the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to step in. In 1999, Philip Barnes was a Cincinnati police officer training for a promotion to sergeant. Barnes was also intent on changing his gender and spent his off hours living as a woman. Barnes, who had worked in the department since 1981, ranked 18th out of the 105 officers who took the sergeant’s exam. But the police department, citing a litany of professional errors and shortcomings, refused to promote Barnes. Barnes, now known as Philecia Barnes, filed suit in 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A jury ultimately agreed with Barnes, awarding $320,000 in damages. The verdict was later upheld by the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On appeal, the city argued, to no avail, that the sexual discrimination Barnes claims is instead sexual stereotyping, based on his act of switching sexes, which does not enjoy special protection under the law and would leave Barnes without a cause of action. The Supreme Court will consider Barnes v. City of Cincinnatiduring its private conference on Nov. 4. It is among several cases the court will review to determine if they should be added to the court’s docket for argument next year. In its brief the city cites Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a landmark sex discrimination case decided in 1989 with a 6-3 vote. In a dissenting opinion in that case, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that “Title VII creates no independent cause of action for sex stereotyping.” The dissent went further, emphasizing, “The plaintiff must show that the employer relied on her gender in making its decision.” The city sees this as an opening. It has asked the court to view Barnes as a transsexual and in the same light as homosexuality, which does not have protection under Title VII. The brief also cites confusion between the circuits and says the Second and Seventh circuits have recognized that Title VII does not protect transsexuals from discrimination. In the respondent brief, Barnes says the circuits are in agreement because his claim was not based on his transsexuality but on how the department viewed his gender. Barnes claims the court established clear precedent with Price Waterhouse, saying sex stereotyping is a form of discrimination and the law was properly applied in this case. “Just as the woman in Price Waterhousewas denied a partnership because she was not sufficiently feminine for her employer, Philip Barnes, a male at the time of his probation, was denied his promotion because he was not sufficiently masculine enough for his supervisors,” the brief states. What is most important, says Richard Ganulin, Cincinnati’s assistant city solicitor, is whether the court desires to redefine the difference between sex discrimination and sexual stereotyping. “The law tries to keep women and men from being treated differently,” says Ganulin. “But different kinds of men and women is the gray area, and the court needs to step in.” OTHER CASES UP FOR REVIEW

    Howard Delivery Service Inc . v . Zurich American Insurance , 05-128. Whether an insurer’s claim against a debtor’s estate for unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums is entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code.

    This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

    To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

    Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

    Why am I seeing this?

    LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

    ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

    For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

     

    ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

    Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

    As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

    Copyright © 2019 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.