1. What do you think the real problem was here? If you say that it was Jane trying to push too hard, explore what that really means. How responsible should the employer be for the discomfort of other employees? What about when the discomfort arises from long-held beliefs based on misinformation which society may have taken for granted until now? Would it be different if the issue was race instead of sexual orientation (that is, employees did not want to deal with employees of other races in the workplace and were uncomfortable doing so)? Explain.

2. Are you surprised that Boeing had eight other employees to deal with on this issue? Explain. Are you surprised that an employer dealt with this issue with the depth that Boeing did? Why do you think it did so?

3. Doe evidently kept going to the female toilet but it was the pink pearls that got her fired. Any thoughts as to why? Explain.

Issue: Whether an employer has the right under the law, which properly accommodates a male employee undergoing gender reassignment surgery, in permitting that employee to wear unisex clothing, but prohibits the wearing of pink pearls.

Facts: An employee undergoing gender reassignment surgery was provided by the employer with guidelines for how to dress during the period when he was required by his doctors to live as a female. The guidelines were developed with the input of its legal, medical, personnel, and labor relations personnel and outside consultants. The guidelines provided for unisex clothing or male clothing, includes blouses, sweaters, slacks, flat shoes, nylon stockings, earrings, lipstick foundation, and clear nail polish. The employee did not continuously follow the guidelines and eventually wore a strand of pink pearls to work with his outfit. The employer found this unacceptable and terminated the employee.

Decision: It was recognized that employers have an affirmative obligation to reasonably accommodate the sensory, mental, or physical limitations of disabled employees unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. The issue is whether Boeing had a duty to accommodate Doe’s preferred manner of dress prior to her gender reassignment surgery. The court held that the scope of an employer’s duty to accommodate an employee’s condition is limited to those steps reasonably necessary to enable the employee to perform his or her job. Doe argues that Boeing failed to accommodate. The court disagreed. The record substantially supports the trial court’s findings that Boeing reasonably accommodated Doe in the manner of dress by allowing her to wear unisex clothing at work. Despite this accommodation Doe determined unilaterally, and without medical confirmation, that she needed to dress as a woman at her place of employment in order to qualify for gender reassignment surgery. The court found substantial support for the trial court’s finding that Doe had no medical need to dress as a woman at work in order to qualify for her surgery. In determining what a reasonable accommodation is, the evaluation must begin with the job specifications and how those tasks are impacted by the abnormal condition. Doe’s performance was unchanged by her gender dysphoria. Based on the record, there was no accommodation that Boeing could have provided that would have aided Doe in the performance of her work. How she dressed or appeared had no impact on the physical or mental requirements of her employment responsibilities.