Last week, I posted about a new decision from the federal court in Connecticut that threw out a transgender litigation claim. 

The Connecticut Law Tribune has some additional feedback on that case from the employee’s counsel in today’s paper.  I’m also quoted in the article; in it, I explain that tcourtesy wikipedia commons "library of congress"ransgender litigation — while perhaps getting headlines — remains a very small percentage of employment claims out there.

The employee’s counsel told the Trib that the case was just a bit ahead of its time:

Bridgeport attorney V. Michael Simko handled the case pro bono and attributed the loss to a lack of witnesses to back his client’s claims and the state’s failure to approve a transgender discrimination law in the past three legislative sessions.

When filing the case in 2006, "I took a risk that the legislature would be farther along," Simko said. "I was a couple of years too early. The lack of law doomed my risky endeavor."

Interestingly, there is another transgender litigation case in Washington, DC worth watching; the bench trial in Schroer v. Library of Congress began last week. Workplace Horizons has the details on that case.