On Monday August 2, 2005, I was on vacation in Tampa with my wife and daughter. I woke up that morning not feeling very confident about my future in law enforcement. I had a lot to do this week, including appearing in court for my name change. As we traveled back to Miami I was talking to my wife when the first phone calls started to come in. Over the next several days, the shock waves continued as phone calls and emails continued to come in. Several coworkers offered support and many had concerns and questions. It didn’t take long for me to figure out that things had gone horribly wrong. Management had cancelled all leave for the week and advised staff that a mandatory meeting was taking place. Management began their campaign of isolation identifying me by photograph to staff. They discussed my personal and private medical information to staff including my [Fitness For Duty] examination. Staff was encouraged to monitor me and report back to management immediately if they observed any issues with me having problems.Management even went so far as to tell staff that I as being selfish to my daughter for transitioning. This would later be a common theme expressed by many staff and is still an issue with many today. I also learned that management told staff that this would more than likely end up in a lawsuit. As I heard more I became overwhelmed by the lack of sensitivity and tolerance displayed by staff. It was clear to me and my family that management’s unprofessional conduct most certainly crossed the line.
~Veronica Doe, from the Pam’s House Blend interview
During the week of January 18th, attorney Lawrence Berger filed Doe v. Homeland Security on behalf of “Veronica Doe”; Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is named as the defendant. Doe’s complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Doe works for the Department of Homeland Security. Specifically, she’s an Air Marshall with the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS), which is part of the Transportation Security Administration.
This is a civil suit by a Federal Air Marshal against her employer, the United States Department of Homeland Security, for sex discrimination on the basis of sex, sex discrimination through sex stereotyping, sexual harassment, unlawful retaliation, and deprivations/violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution.
In the complaint, she’s alleging that FAMS has engaged in discrimination against her specifically because of her gender identity. Doe identifies as a transsexual; she identifies as transgender.
Veronica Doe is not her real name. Because the Federal Air Marshals is a Sensitive Security Information (SSI) related service, her identity is being protected in the initial filing of the lawsuit. The first action on the case (which will be within the next few weeks) will be whether she must attach her real name to the lawsuit. Lawrence Berger indicated that the Department of Homeland Security is going to argue that they want the suit filed under Doe’s real name. Per the complaint:
Plaintiff uses an alias and her counsel’s address in order to protect and maintain the anonymity necessary for her continued successful performance as a FAM, which requires that she be able to blend in with other passengers on board aircraft.
If Doe’s name and photo becomes public, the likelihood is that her career may parallel what happened to Valerie Plame’s career when Plame was outed as a CIA agent.
Doe’s complaint alleges the following:
• On April 29, 2004, Plaintiff informed senior management at the MFO that she had been diagnosed with GID. Plaintiff explained that in the course of her treatment she would gradually transition from an outwardly masculine appearance to a decidedly feminine appearance and presentation. Plaintiff would also undertake a legal name change from her former name, which was stereotypically male, to her present feminine name.• Almost immediately thereafter Defendant initiated a campaign of harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff in her employment because she did not conform to sex stereotypes and otherwise because of her gender, and because she was undertaking the prescribed course of medical treatment for GID. Defendant either viewed Plaintiff as a man who dressed and behaved like a woman, or it considered her a woman who was insufficiently feminine. Either way, Defendant’s sex stereotyping violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Plaintiff tried to work directly with Defendant to remedy the harassment and discrimination. When the actions continued unabated she hired counsel to represent her interests in a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint with Defendant’s EEO Complaints Program Management Office. Defendants continued and intensified the harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff in reprisal.
Per the complaint, the following are some examples of discrimination that Doe reports experiencing:
• Once Plaintiff’s gender transition was well underway and she was hormonally female and outwardly appearing as female she tried to discuss with [her Senior Officer In Charge (SAC)] her proposed use of the women’s restroom as opposed to the men’s. [The SAC] denied her request and refused to discuss it further, shouting “You are not a woman, you are a man!”• [The SAC] refused to provide reasonable accommodations (shower/restroom) after Plaintiff returned from undergoing feminizing facial surgery (FFS) and was presenting as female on a full-time basis. He advised Plaintiff that unless it was an emergency she would have to leave the office and use restroom facilities at “Lester’s Diner” — located over a quarter mile away.
• [The SAC] Bauer advised Plaintiff that, after her Sex Reassignment Surgery (“SRS”) was completed, he would decide whether she would be allowed to use female facilities.
• [The SAC] signaled to the other staff members that Plaintiff was fair game for harassment by displaying her picture to field staff and telling them that she was not going to come running to management to report harassment. Plaintiff understands, upon information, belief, and experience, that this has never been done to any other field office staff personnel.
• [The SAC] has continued to refer to Plaintiff in masculine terms, including in written documents he personally authored as late as April of 2009.
• [The Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ATSAC)] both witnessed and participated in the violation of Plaintiff’s medical confidentiality and civil rights by providing to, and discussing with, other agency executive staff (SAC’S) and field office personnel Plaintiff’s personal and medical information. [The ATSAC] admitted to this in an affidavit dated July 26, 2006.
• [The ATSAC] revealed and/or discussed with MFO staff such personal information as the effect of Plaintiff’s transition upon her family (wife and daughter) and stated that Plaintiff was being selfish toward her daughter. [The ATSAC] also discussed the status of Plaintiff’s genitals with other personnel. [The ATSAC] admitted to this in the July 26, 2006 affidavit, referenced above.
The allegations literally run in the dozens.
I interviewed Air Marshal Veronica Doe for Pam’s House Blend, and the full interview is available here in PDF format. She gives a timeline for much of the discrimination she experienced, as well as answering the following question:
Has the Obama Administration’s relatively recent announcement that they are going to change policy — protecting employees based on gender identity — effected how your coworkers and management treat you in the workplace? Has the Obama Administration announcement of their policy change had any affect whatsoever on your workplace situation?
Plaintiff Veronica Doe is a career federal law enforcement officer with over twenty years of federal service — This is someone who had an exemplary career with the Bureau of Prisons prior to transferring to the Federal Air Marshals. She’s serving our country; she deserves better treatment than she appears to be receiving by others in federal service.
And speaking of country, it will be interesting to see how the Obama administration will deal with this first lawsuit involving gender identity based discrimination since their gender identity non-discrimination policy changes were first announced last June.
Certainly, for those of us who travel by air and are American and transsexual and/or transgender, this is not a heartening story. If the TSA is truly this bad with one of their own, how should we expect them to treat trans people they don’t know? Does the TSA have any relevant diversity and/or cultural sensitivity training regarding trans people? Regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community members? I know I now wonder.
~~
This will not be the last we hear of this lawsuit, nor will this be the last we hear of discrimination within the Federal Air Marshals. There is broader context to this story that we will no doubt be reading about, as well as perhaps watching on our television sets, very soon.
~~~~~
Related:
* New York Times: “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers”
* U.S. Government Adds Gender Identity Protections To USAJobs Website
* Maddow: Obama Names First Transgender Nominee; USAJobs Adds Gender Identity





21 Comments


Big surpriseWhat’s that you say? A law enforcement agency is full of bigoted Neanderthals?
I never woulda guessed.
Just, wow.That’s absolutely appalling behavior by TSA/FAMS. I applaud Veronica’s bravery in going forward with the lawsuit, and I really, really, REALLY hope you win. For everyone who’s ever had to face this kind of crap at work, regardless of orientation or gender identity. No one should be treated like this. Ever.
?
I’m getting a “bad encrypt dictionary” error when I try to bring up the PDF.
Press charges?I’m a bit unfamiliar with the legal status of this, but isn’t unauthorized release of PHI a criminal act on the part of the SAC?
Yes, so what?Laws that are not enforced are meaningless.
A complaint such as this has to be referred to the OSC now, due to the Obama change in policy.
The OSC has not got the legal authority to investigate such complaints. It can only act in areas authorised by legal statute.
She may be able to get them because they complained about her action (of transitioning – saying that it was selfish) rather than her status (of being transsexual).
It’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of non-performance-related actions, but not status. So marital status, or disabled status, are covered by separate laws.
The vaunted “change of policy” by Obama amounted to changing the wording on one web page. That’s all. That’s the ONLY effect. All show, no substance.
I get the feeling that GLBs (without the T) don’t realise that this is par for the course. Not exceptional, but usual. While Gays may, sometimes, rarely, be fired for being gay, if someone transitions, it’s more like 50/50 unless there’s company policies in place to stop it. If there are, maybe 10% instead.
I worked for a federal Law Enforcement Agencyduring part of my career, and believe me, the chauvenism and outright misogeny is blatant and working in Human Resources, we saw EEO complaints coming in every week (i.e. sexual harassment, etc.). After 3 years there, I had to leave, it was disgusting.
True
Plus, if I’m interpreting everything else correctly, all of the actions that form the basis for the lawsuit occurred before the policy change – meaning that, even if the policy change was worth even as much as the paper it is printed on (which it is not; sorry, but that’s reality), it wouldn’t apply to Doe’s case, much like the current ENDA, even if it was to pass both houses and become law today, would not apply to the discrimination against me by a law school during my interview for a professorship last November.
A Personal Remark…Some call it “Mad Tranny Disease”. The inability to just let things ride, to take the easy way out.
We – and for the purposes of this post, I’m TS rather than IS – are incredibly tenacious. We don’t let go.
That’s not due to us, as a group, having any great virtue, or strength of character. Transsexuals, especially TS women, don’t, as a rule.
The live ones do though. Those who make it to age 40. The rest fall by the wayside, they take the easy way out. They die. Only the ones who never give up, never surrender, regardless of the odds, survive.
It’s discomforting to realise that I, and all the TS women my age, those who transition late, are the products of a ruthless Darwinian process. If we didn’t have “Mad Tranny Disease”, an inability to surrender, sheer indomitability regardless of the crap we have to face, we’d be dead. We tried to do the “boy act” for 40 years, remember? Living without transition is far, far harder than anything we face afterwards. Harder than many things others – especially GLBs who get discriminated against – can’t believe actually happen – but do.
I pity her opponents. Had they tried this kind of treatment on anyone else, they would have “disposed of the problem” long ago. They have NO IDEA what they’re facing now.
It doesn’t work on us.
What we have to remember, and by “we” I mean “I”, is that we’re amongst friends here. People who may disagree with us, but in general, bear us no malice. Our defiance, our obstinacy, our pig-headedness can be counter-productive at times.
Go to Bilerico, and you’ll find posts with 2, 3, maybe 10 comments. Except in issues involving the Transgendered, then it will be in 3 figures. This is no accident, I’m afraid.
I’ve been guilty of it here, at PHB. Of taking a belligerent tone when it wasn’t called for. I apologise to everyone who I’ve treated unfairly in the past, and ask a favour. Next time I do it… just say “Zoe? MTD.”. And I’ll pause, and reflect. And try not to do it again. I can be firm without being harsh. Sorry.
hippaNot sure if it applies, but management may have been violating HIPPA laws by disclosing medical information w/o prior approval too. That is depending on where information was obtained. Just one more thing to think about.
just me 2 cents
aj
At First BlushI’d have to say Homeland Security is screwed (that’s good) because this case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The same court that heard the historic Schroer vs Library of Congress:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-right…
A case that we won. The judge ruled that gender identity is a component of what is commonly referred to as “sex” and is therefore covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Homeland Security is in big trouble.
A bulls-eyeI transitioned while working for the Army as a careerist in a civilian specialist group of about 600 persons world-wide. Everyone knows everyone else, probably similar to the situation in the Air Marshall program. In some ways my experience was like Ms Doe’s, but I also had some support from management. Even so, the ordeal of transitioning while staying in place at the same job was hellish. Even after twelve years the “transition,” as far as my colleagues were concerned, had never really ended. I finally achieved peace by retiring late last year.
I’m all in support of Ms Doe’s legal actions and wish her well, but I doubt the laws and personnel regulations will support her. Being able to transition successfully in the Federal government is based more upon the consideration of peers and supervisors than reliance upon rules and regulations, because those that support transition do not exist.
Hippa does cover this and any medical disclosures. If her accusations are true, they violated the Hippa regulations. Also Management Directive 1100.73-5.
http://www.afge.org/Documents/…
The Administrators and Managers at TSA are very good at throwing these Management Directives at subordinate employees. If you are a lower level employee they use these MD’s as weapons. They suck at holding themselves to these Management Directives. The Administrators and Managers rarely document their own or each others misconduct. The OSC ignores violations by higher ups in TSA.
This came from the top down but much like Abu Ghraib, they will try to scape goat the lowest level officer possible. Everyone who participated in this has the responsiblity to know the rules. Being a “grunt” doesn’t give you immunity from being held responsible for following an unlawful order. But they do need to follow the violations up the chain of command too.
1978 Civil Service Reform ActDeep sigh…..this is precisely why we complained when DHS was created and the Republican Congress exempted the Department and their agencies from the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that protects federal employees from things that do not impact their performance (ie sexual orientation) Defense Dept. followed suit when they scrapped the Civil Service/GS pay scale and went with their own system. Union representation and other protections get stripped from Federal employees when they go to depts/agencies that have their own special pay system. Hopefully this will be an example of just how awful things can be. I’ve heard even worse horror stories but will continue to improve training, education, and sensitivity for our employees transitioning in our Department.
One would hope HIPPA hasnt also been exempted from DHS and Defense.. but it wouldn’t surprise me.
My sympathies for Veronica Doe.
KatRoseIt’s working for me; here’s the link:
http://tgpride.net/PDF/PamsHou…
If it continues to be a problem, lemme know and we’ll figure how to shake it out of the computer.
Its probably just the computer I’m onIt has an older browser and an older version of Adobe. I’ll try it on my laptop later, which has up-to-date versions of both.
And it will eventually go to…the U.S. Supreme Court that just said corporations have more rights than humans.
Back when they still had US DEPT of Customs I applied and did all they required and i was accepted to do the job for K-9 officer.. I wanted to help my country after 911 .. but suddenly they found my past and delay on offer of employment was put into effect and bush’s reelection in November i was delivered the letter of rejection .. from a post i answered some time ago http://www.pamshouseblend.com/…
So Veronica Doe my heart knows what your going threw.. An hang in there.. Cause there are other MtF’s working for the Air marshals.. You have a Jerk for a boss and I am quite confident they will come down on your side.. precedent is on yourside.. an now with Amanda’s appointment i think you stand a good chance of winning your case..
And know all of us are pulling for you..
you know an executive order on non-discrimination to this department Might mean that gays could possibly transfer to the merchant marines or the Coast Guard as well as the border patrol where they could serve openly….
ImplicationsThe implications here are profound for many transgender people with respect to institutionalized discrimination, harassment and abuses of power and authority within the agency. The FAMS are run by former U.S. Secret Service retirees that are augmenting their retirements. They are people of power and this small group of insiders have a degree of power and influence due to their previous assignments; many to the POTUS’ themselves. They head various offices and have close associations within government. This is scary to be sure.
i too will be curious to see how the obama adminstration handles itthey did just intervene in a case involving discrimination against a gender non-conforming high school student. surprisingly, they are intervening to be sure that the student gets title ix protection. in other words, they’re siding with justice in that case. with luck the administration will have a warm spot for transgender people that they don’t seem to have for gay non-trans people.
i’ll be eagerly waiting to see if they do force the plaintiff to reveal her identity. recall that the r-71 haters here in washington state have been allowed to remain anonymous while the federal courts and ussc ponder their claim in the Doe v. Reed case about referendum petitions being public information. unlike Veronica, the Doe v. Reed plaintiffs didn’t even produce any meaningful evidence of being targeted.
Too egregious to failI know that in legal matters a “cast iron” case is one which you’re 90% likely to win, and nothing is certain.
That said, I read the entire interview which Pam posted, and the behavior in this case is SO egregious, it’s hard for me to foresee a loss on the part of FAM Doe, particularly in two cases:
A government agency ordering her to walk a quarter of a mile (one-way) in order to pee, to freeload on a private business with no shower facilities, AND being required to shower during her duty without providing a place to do it, when MALE personnel were permitted to use the on-site facilities which were designated for women… how is it possible to defend that? That’s half a mile, round trip. At a decent walking clip of 5 mph, that’s a 6-minute hike to use the bathroom, each and every time, not counting actually using the bathroom.
A government agency sharing private medical information without her express, written permission… that’s a clear violation of federal medical privacy laws. There’s not much wiggle-room there. Add in that she explicitly told them NOT TO DO IT, and as a complaint it’s hard to beat.
Ice the cake with the dozens of other problems, including the agency destroying the documentation, and it’s hard to see how FAM Doe can’t prevail.
On the other hand, that’s what discrimination IS. Nothing says the resolution of a manifestly unfair, unethical, and illegal practice has to be fair.
But I have hopes. Good luck, FAM Doe.
Grace