Court Backs Trans Plaintiffs in Oklahoma Lawsuit
2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the high court found that the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination.“Applied here, Bostock’s reasoning leads to the conclusion that the Policy intentionally discriminates against Plaintiffs based in part on sex,” McHugh wrote on behalf of herself and Judge Richard Federico. “Take [plaintiff] Ms. [Rowan] Fowler, for example.
If her sex were different (i.e., if she had been assigned female at birth), then the Policy would not deny her a birth certificate that accurately reflects her identity.
So too for Mr. [Allister] Hall and Mr. [Carter] Ray — had they been assigned male at birth, the Policy would not impact them.
Thus, the Policy intentionally treats Plaintiffs differently because of their sex assigned at birth.”Although she noted that the state and its allies have suggested various reasons for why the transgender plaintiff’s claim of discrimination should be rejected, the court, she wrote, “find[s] none persuasive.”Stitt’s executive order implementing the policy appears to have been motivated, in part, by his own opposition to the concept that a person’s gender can differ from their assigned sex at birth, and in part, a desire to curry favor with social conservatives.The governor and his fellow Republicans in the legislature were outraged after Oklahoma’s Department of Health complied with a judge’s order and issued an amended birth certificate with a nonbinary gender marker. “I believe that people are created by God to be male or female.
