Protection of Transgender Employees from Discrimination: Is There Convergence Between the Approaches of the US Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union?

Turkan Ertuna Lagrand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

On June 15, 2020, in its landmark decision of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being transgender violates existing US law. This judgment is significant not only for being the first case before the Supreme Court relating to the rights of transgender individuals, but also because in this judgment the Court breaks away from a number of settled approaches ingrained in the reasonings of US Courts of various levels. In building up on this case law and considering what its effects might be on the legal protection afforded by the European Union at first sight the two courts seem to be on the same page. Indeed, the Court of Justice of the European Union dealt with the same issue in 1996 in P. v S. and Cornwall County Council, which became the first case law in the world preventing discrimination because a person is transgender. This paper investigates the extent to which the reasonings leading up to these judgments converge and finds, next to clear parallels, a number of elements which diverge. By looking into these varying approaches, the courts, lawyers and activists can better contribute to advancing the rights of transgender persons by looking into these different approaches.
Original languageEnglish
JournalGenIUS - Rivista di studi giuridici sull'orientamento sessuale e l'identità di genere
Volume2020-1
Publication statusPublished - 17 Oct 2020

Research programs

  • EUC

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Protection of Transgender Employees from Discrimination: Is There Convergence Between the Approaches of the US Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this