Transgender Applicant Sues Library of Congress After Job Offer Withdrawn
Former Special Forces and terrorism expert files lawsuit
This story first broke in 2005. The bench trial began this month. The outcome could potentially change the face of federal gender discrimination policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The Library of Congress rescinded a job offer it had extended to Diane Schroer, a retired Army veteran who had led an elite anti-terrorism squad while serving for 25 years as David Schroer. The offer to Schroer was withdrawn by the Library of Congress after they learned the retired colonel was in the process of changing genders from male to female.
Diane J. Schroer, 49, then filed in federal court in D.C., charging the Library of Congress with engaging in sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Schroer is alleging that the Congressional Research Service believed she was qulaified for the position until they learned of her plans to change her gender. According to Schroer, the job offer was rescinded on grounds that she would not be a “good fit” for the position.
“After risking my life for more than 25 years for my country, I’ve been told I’m not worthy of the freedoms I worked so hard to protect,” Schroer said. “All I’m asking is to be judged by my abilities rather than my gender.”
Just one big problem with the above scenario:
Schroer began the interview process as David, and applied while dressed as a male. It was only after she was offered the job that she informed her prospective new employer that she planned to begin work two weeks later as Diane Schroer.
I am not sure that either side was doing HR right in this case!
Well, if they weren't doing HR right, what would you suggest?
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
ReplyDeleteSince Diane already had made up her mind about the change she was making in her life, she should have presented that as part of the package she brought as a candidate. According to published reports, the Library of Congress already had other transgendered employees working there. Hopefully, they would have embraced her as part of their diversity program, or as part of hiring the best talent.
As far as the LOC, they made an offer based on qualifications and experience. They should have followed through, although I fault them less than I do her, since they seem to have proceeded fairly until the point where the candidate introduced a new element.
Very interesting point. You say she should have presented her gender transition in the initial interview. What do you see as the benefits to such an approach, for the employer and for the candidate? Although I have written and consulted extensively on the topic of workplace gender transition, I'm not sure which approach is best. If she had presented her transition as part of the package, perhaps that would have dissuaded them from making the hire, a negative from her point of view. In addition, I'm not sure how that information would have helped the employer in making its (hopefully) merit-based review. If a factor is legally irrelevant to hiring, as in the case of gender, race and religion, then asking for disclosure would seem to be improper.
ReplyDeleteI'm also transgendered (full disclosure: MtF post-op transsexual.) Like Dr. Weiss, I'd like to hear your opinion of the proper way of presenting this bit of information. The employer has no business considering anything other than if my knowledge, skills and abilities are necessary and sufficient to the position, and then are quantified relative to other job-seekers who also meet the minimum requirements. My TS history should have no bearing on the hiring decision. Do you feel I should reveal it, and if so, what is your reason?
ReplyDeleteHazumu, Thanks for your comment. My own opinion is that the choice of timing in presenting the information is what made this situation problematic for the employer. I agree with you that the decision should be based on qulaification. However, a candidate presenting themselves first as a male, then upon geting the offer, notifying the employer that they will be reporting on day 1 as female is bound to catch most employers off guard. I think that would be different than a situation where the transition is already accomplished.
ReplyDeleteMy main point is that Ms. Schroer would probably have been better served to begin the interview/selection process as Diane, rather than splitting it up before she was hired.
I have seen how she approached the communication to the LOC and it was very meticulous. I have no doubt she would have been a fine employee, and I personally believe that she should have been hired. The fact remains that from an employer perspective, which is what I was pointing out, her approach created a problematic sitation. From there, the LOC reacted badly, and that is why they are in court now.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm not sure why catching the employer off guard in this instance is worth anything at all. If I showed up at an interview and had brown hair, then dyed it blond before my first day of work, how would that affect my ability to do the job?
This is not a job that requires masculine characteristics. It's about as clear an example of discrimination as I've seen. "Caught employer off guard" is just a really mild version of the same old prejudices that have kept women, minorities, and glbt people down for hundreds of years.
Unless an employee is in HR or sales, keeping coworkers comfortable isn't generally part of the job description.