Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TRISTAN BROUSSARD,
CIVIL ACTION NO:
2:15-cv-01161
Plaintiff,
v.
SECTION: J
the employment of Mr. Broussard, who is transgender, because of sex, based on perceived
nonconformity with gender stereotypes and/or his gender identity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and
1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1), (3), and 706(g), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1), (3), and (g), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of
1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a.
2.
Venue is proper in this district. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(3). The unlawful acts of
employment discrimination described herein occurred within the State of Louisiana.
PARTIES
3.
The EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the
administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to
intervene in this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(5)(1) and
(3).
4.
At all relevant times, Defendant, First Tower Loan, LLC, has continuously been a
corporation doing business within the State of Louisiana, and has continuously had at least 15
employees. At all relevant times, Defendant has had more than 500 employees.
-2-
5.
At all relevant times, Defendant has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e
(b), (g), and (h).
6.
More than 30 days before the institution of this suit, a charge of discrimination was filed
with the EEOC on behalf of Mr. Broussard alleging violations by Defendant of Title VII.
7.
The EEOC provided notice to Defendant of the charge of discrimination.
8.
The EEOC investigated the charge of discrimination.
9.
Based on evidence discovered during the investigation, the EEOC issued a Letter of
Determination (Determination) to Defendant, finding reasonable cause to believe that
Defendant had engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
10.
The Commissions Determination included an invitation that Defendant join the
Commission in informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion in an attempt to
eliminate and remedy the alleged unlawful employment practices.
11.
Defendant declined to participate in the conciliation process.
-3-
12.
The Commission sent notice to Defendant that conciliation had been unsuccessful.
13.
All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit, if there be any, have been
fulfilled.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
14.
At least since February 2013, Defendant required that Mr. Broussard conform to its
gender stereotypes to remain employed.
necessarily limited to, Mr. Broussards dressing, grooming, and conducting himself in a manner
which Defendant considered to conform with its gender stereotypes.
15.
On August 27, 2013, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) filed with the
Commission the instant charge of discrimination on Mr. Broussards behalf, alleging violations
of Title VII by Defendant.
16.
Mr. Broussards gender identity is male and he presents as a male. Mr. Broussard has
been living his life as a man, consistent with his male gender identity, since September 2011.
17.
Mr. Broussard was designated as female at birth.
-4-
18.
By definition, individuals who are transgender identify as and conform to a sex different
from the sex assigned to them at birth, which contradicts widespread, sex-based cultural
expectations, assumptions, norms, and stereotypes.
19.
By living and identifying as a man, after being designated female at birth, Mr. Broussard
did not conform to the sex-based stereotypes and norms expected of him by Defendant.
20.
In February 2013, Mr. Broussard applied for a Manager Trainee position at Defendants
Lake Charles, Louisiana, office.
21.
The duties of the Manager Trainee position do not require its incumbents to be of any
particular sex or gender identity. Sex is not a bona fide qualification for the job.
22.
Leah Sparks (Ms. Sparks), manager of Towers Lake Charles, Louisiana, branch
interviewed Mr. Broussard for the Manager Trainee position on or about February 25, 2013.
23.
Ms. Sparks and/or other officials of Defendant concluded that Mr. Broussard was
qualified for the Manager Trainee position.
24.
Later that same day, Ms. Sparks called Mr. Broussard to offer him the Manager Trainee
position, which Mr. Broussard accepted.
-5-
25.
During the events described in Paragraphs 22 through 24 above, Ms. Sparks perceived
Mr. Broussard as male.
26.
Mr. Broussard began working for Tower on March 4, 2013.
27.
While Mr. Broussard was completing his employment paperwork for new employees on
March 4, 2013, Tower required him to provide a valid form of identification. Mr. Broussard
provided his drivers license to Ms. Sparks.
28.
Mr. Broussards drivers license lists his sex as F, which refers to the sex he was
assigned at birth (female). At all times relevant, Defendant had no information indicating that
Mr. Broussard was female, other than his drivers license.
29.
When Ms. Sparks noticed that Mr. Broussards drivers license listed his sex as F, she
asked Mr. Broussard about it. Mr. Broussard explained that he is a transgender man.
30.
After seeing the F on Mr. Broussards drivers license, Ms. Sparks notified Tower Vice
President, David Morgan (Mr. Morgan), of it.
31.
During his first week of employment, Mr. Broussard performed his job duties
satisfactorily. Indeed, Ms. Sparks commented to him during this period that he was doing well.
-6-
32.
Subsequently, on March 11, 2013, Mr. Morgan traveled to Towers Lake Charles,
Louisiana office to meet with Mr. Broussard.
33.
During the meeting, Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Broussard that Respondent did not want
Mr. Broussard to dress like a man and that going forward he must instead dress and act as
female in the workplace.
34.
Mr. Broussard told Mr. Morgan that he is transgender and lives and identifies as male.
35.
Mr. Morgan stated to Mr. Broussard that he could not dress as a man because it would be
confusing to customers.
36.
Defendant produced no evidence to the EEOC during its investigation that any customer
complained about Mr. Broussard because of his manner of dress or grooming, or otherwise
expressed any confusion or concern as a result of Mr. Broussards presenting as a man.
37.
Mr. Morgan stated to Mr. Broussard that Tower might consider employing him as a man
if he underwent surgery.
38.
Mr. Morgan then presented Mr. Broussard with a written statement which Defendant
required Mr. Broussard to sign as a condition of continued employment.
-7-
39.
The written statement referred to in Paragraph 38 above provided:
I understand that my preference to act and dress as a male, despite having
been born a female, is not something that will be in compliance with Tower
Loans personnel policies. I have been advised as to the proper dress for
females and also have been provided a copy of the female dress code. I also
understand that when meetings occur that require out of town travel and an
overnight room is required, I will be in [sic] assigned to a room with a
female.
40.
Upon presenting the statement to Mr. Broussard, Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Broussards
supervisor had said many positive things about him. Mr. Morgan did not state that there had
been any complaints about Mr. Broussard, either by customers or other Tower employees.
41.
Mr. Broussard refused to sign the agreement and explained that he could not agree to
dress or act as female because that is not who he is. Defendants conditioning Mr. Broussards
continued employment on his signing the statement effectuated his termination.
42.
The next day, Ms. Sparks called Mr. Broussard to apologize, stating that she did not
know Mr. Broussard was going to be fired for being transgender.
43.
The manner in which Mr. Broussard dressed and conducted himself while employed by
Defendant did not violate any of Defendants written policies concerning dress, grooming, or
conduct.
-8-
44.
Defendant did not produce any written policies during the EEOC investigation that
employees are required to share a hotel room with employees of a certain sex or gender when
traveling on behalf of Defendant. If such a policy existed, Defendant did not explore at all with
Mr. Broussard whether other arrangements could be made, in lieu of discharge.
45.
Defendant terminated Mr. Broussard because of sex by firing him because Mr. Broussard
did not, in Defendants perception, conform to its gender stereotypes.
46.
Defendant fired Mr. Broussard because he identifies as a different sex than that assigned
to him at birth, because Mr. Broussard had a male gender presentation rather than a female one,
and/or because Mr. Broussard did not conform to the sex-based norms and stereotypes that
Defendant insisted that Mr. Broussard match.
47.
The employment practices alleged herein violate Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42
U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), by discriminating because of sex.
48.
The effect of Defendants unlawful employment practices was to deprive Mr. Broussard
of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,
because of sex.
-9-
49.
Towers unlawful employment practices were intentional and were committed with
malice or reckless indifference to Mr. Broussards rights under Title VII and to the rights of any
persons in like or related circumstances.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the EEOC respectfully requests that this Court:
A.
B.
Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which
provide equal employment opportunities for all individuals regardless of sex and
which will eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment
practices, including but not limited to: training of personnel; reporting to the
Commission concerning compliance with Title VII; and hiring and employing
persons without regard to their conformity with gender stereotypes;
C.
- 10 -
D.
E.
F.
G.
Grant such further legal or equitable relief as the Court deems necessary and
proper in the public interest; and
H.
In accordance with Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the EEOC
hereby requests a jury on all issues raised in the instant Complaint which may be tried by jury.
- 11 -
Respectfully submitted,
P. DAVID LOPEZ
General Counsel
No Bar Roll Number Assigned
JAMES L. LEE
Deputy General Counsel
No Bar Roll Number Assigned
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
No Bar Roll Number Assigned
JIM SACHER
Regional Attorney
La. Bar Roll Number 14888
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Houston District Office
1919 Smith Street
7th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Direct Line: (713) 651-4963
james.sacher@eeoc.gov
- 12 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on counsel of record for all
parties, via the Courts ECF system, on this 8th day of September, 2015.
- 13 -
TRISTAN BROUSSARD,
CIVIL ACTION NO:
2:15-cv-01161
Plaintiff,
v.
SECTION: J
JUDGE BARBIER
CERTIFICATION OF GENERAL
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1)
Upon review of the facts of this case, I have determined that it raises issues of general
public importance regarding allegations that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., as amended, by terminating the employment of Mr.
Broussard, who is transgender, because of sex, based on perceived nonconformity with gender
stereotypes, and/or his gender identity.
DATED THIS 8th day of September, 2015.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A