A lawsuit against Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. is set to proceed to trial after a U.S. District Court in Northern California ruled against the company’s bid for a summary judgment. The case involves allegations of gender identity discrimination brought by a former transgender employee. The plaintiff accused Progressive of repeated misgendering, blocking a promotion, an unwanted office switch, and invasive scrutiny regarding medical appointments and time off, all violating California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Progressive tried to argue that the plaintiff wasn’t treated differently due to gender identity, mainly focusing on authority levels during the plaintiff’s tenure. However, the court noted this defence didn’t address key aspects like the missed promotion or unwanted transfer. While Progressive claimed they didn’t deny medical leave, the court pointed out that the eventual approval doesn’t erase the possibility of improper scrutiny that might have discouraged the plaintiff from requesting time off.
Regarding misgendering incidents, Progressive chalked it up to accidents, but the plaintiff highlighted five separate incidents and noted a supervisor’s dismissive attitude toward gender concerns. The court dismissed Progressive’s arguments about the denied promotion and transfer, citing evidence of a hostile interview atmosphere and insufficient reasoning behind the transfer, especially as the plaintiff had requested not to work under the post-transfer supervisor.
Progressive Insurance remained silent when approached for comment before press time. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act shields employees from gender identity discrimination, among other identity-based discriminations. Similarly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law, prohibits gender identity discrimination nationwide following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in 2020.
In a case against Progressive Insurance, a U.S. District Court’s refusal for summary judgment sends a clear message about the gravity of alleged gender identity discrimination. This decision highlights the need for stringent adherence to anti-discrimination laws, both at state and federal levels, ensuring fair treatment for all employees.
