1. Are claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity not covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
2. What is a PriceWaterhouse v. Hopkins gender stereotyping lawsuit?

[The plaintiff, Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn, was born a biological male. Glenn was diagnosed with gender identity disorder. Working in the state assembly's general counsel's office as an editor, in 2006 she informed her supervisor that she was transgender and was transitioning to the female gender, assuming the dress and grooming habits of the opposite sex. Sewell Brumby, the head of the office, after considering the problems this might cause, such as privacy issues in multiemployer restroom usage, terminated her. She brought suit based on a PriceWaterhouse v.
Hopkins sex stereotyping claim.]
STORY, D.J.…
This Court concurs with the majority of courts that have addressed this issue, finding that discrimination against a transgendered individual because of their failure to conform to gender stereotypes constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex.… While transsexuals are not members of a protected class based on sex, those who do not conform to gender stereotypes are members of a protected class based on sex. See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 251 (stating "we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group"). In reaching the same conclusion as this Court does today, the Sixth Circuit noted that some courts improperly "superimpose classifications such as 'transsexual' on a plaintiff, and then legitimize discrimination based on plaintiff's gender nonconformity by formalizing the non-conformity into an ostensibly unprotected classification." … Title VII is violated when an employer discriminates against any employee, transsexual or not, because he or she has failed to act or appear sufficiently masculine or feminine enough for an employer.").…
Defendant asserts that one legitimate government purpose is the avoidance of lawsuits against the government. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's continued employment at OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] while presenting as a woman without undergoing genital reassignment surgery, could expose the government to suits for invasion of privacy or sexual harassment. Defendant argues that although there were singleoccupancy restrooms available in the OLC office, Plaintiff was not required to use these and may have used the multi-person restrooms located elsewhere in the Georgia Capitol Building.… Brumby has not drawn the Court's attention to any evidence that he was concerned with Plaintiff's restroom usage, or discussed Plaintiff's restroom usage with her or anyone else before her termination. Therefore, since there is no evidence that this was an actual concern of Brumby in terminating Plaintiff, this asserted reason cannot survive the heightened scrutiny applicable to Plaintiff's sex discrimination claim.… [Judgment for Glenn.]