Introduction
This research paper uses FIRAC (facts, issues, rules, applications, and conclusions) to analyze the case. FIRAC is an outlining tool for legal reasoning and presentation. Ulane, as a transsexual, brought a lawsuit against Easter Airlines for dismissing her from her role as a pilot.
The pilot claimed that Eastern Airlines had violated Title VII. The US District Court of Illinois ruled favor Ulane (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). The Court maintained that the company discriminated against Ulane based on her sex as a transsexual and female. However, the Court of Appeal noted that:
- Title VII did not account for transsexuals.
- The trial judge did not obtain any factual evidence to support the ruling that Eastern Airlines discriminated against Ulane because of being a transsexual.
Facts of the case
The counsel for Karen Ulane classified her case under Title VII. The company fired Ulane as a pilot because she changed her sex from male to female (Associated Press 1). This is the fact of Ulane’s case.
Ulane acquired her pilot license in 1964. He worked in the United States Army from then until 1968. Ulane was in combat missions in Vietnam. As a result, he got Air Medal that had eight clusters. From 1968, Ulane started working at Eastern Airlines as a pilot. He then moved to the rank of First Officer. Ulane’s roles also included flight instruction with a log of more than 8,000 flight hours.
In 1979, medical procedures confirmed that Ulane was a transsexual. Ulane claimed that although he lived as a male, but early childhood stages, he always felt like the opposite sex. While in the military in 1968, Ulane noted his condition and sought medical and psychiatric help.
Ulane started using female hormones (Chicago Tribune 1). This was a part of her treatment (Gini 1-4). As a result, she developed breasts from these drugs.
In 1980, Ulane went through sex reassignment surgery.
Following the surgery, Ulane changed her sex to female by obtaining a revised birth certificate in Illinois (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). Consequently, the FAA officially endorsed Ulane as a female pilot. However, Ulane’s physician noted that the medical procedure would not result in a complete biological female i.e., Ulane would not be able to have ovaries, uterus, or be able to conceive (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). Ulane maintained that a failure in alteration in her chromosomes was not important.
The company did not learn about Ulane’s hormone treatment, medical procedures, transsexuality, or Ulane’s psychiatric treatment until she returned to work after undergoing a reassignment surgery (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). Eastern Airlines believed that Ulane was a male pilot in the company.
Transsexualism occurs in a condition where a physiologically normal person feels discontented with his or her original sex and feels like the opposite sex. As a result, such a person may resort to surgical procedures, hormonal treatments, and civil alternatives in order to realize his or her desired sex. These alternatives are appropriate if the person has experienced the discomfort for at least two years. However, an individual must not exhibit cases of mental conditions like schizophrenia. In the case of Ulane, he started experiencing discomfort during his childhood stage.
Issues of the case
Title VII and the case of Ulane as a Transsexual
First, the District Judge noted that Eastern Airlines fired Ulane because of a change in sex i.e., for being transsexual. However, Title VII does not allow any form of discrimination based on sex. Further, the Court of Appeal argued that Title VII did not protect Ulane as a transsexual. On this note, the initial ruling of the District Court was to be altered because it lacked any jurisdiction.
The critical point to note in the argument of the Court of Appeal is that words should maintain their original, ordinary, and common meanings. On this note, the section that outlaw discrimination of a person based on his or her sex reflects the plain meaning of the word sex. In other words, it would be unlawful to discriminate against a woman because she is a woman or a man because he is a man. From this interpretation, one may recognize that the phrase of Title VII do not prohibit discrimination of an individual who has a sexual identity challenge. This is an individual born with a body of a male person but believes that he is a female person, a person who has a female body but believes that he is a man. The Title VII prohibition of discrimination against an individual’s sex is not the same as a prohibition against a person’s sexual identity challenge or disorder. In addition, Title VII does not account for people who feel discontented with the sex into which they were born.
Therefore, Title VII does not go beyond the plain meaning of an individual’s sex. The scarcity of legislative work on transsexuality implies that the interpretation of Title VII must maintain the plain language of the phrase.
The notion that the remedial statutes should have a liberal construction is noted. However, the Court recognizes that it cannot go beyond its limit in interpreting the law without undermining the role of Congress. Therefore, any attempt to include a transsexual as a part of Title VII would go beyond a mere interpretation of the law (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). One would argue that Congress had a limited idea about sex when it enacted the Civil Rights Act 1964. Moreover, Congress has rejected any previous attempts to widen the scope of sex from its primary meaning and interpretation. In other words, any attempt for the Court of Appeal to hold that Title VII protects transsexuals would be out of place with the law, its sphere of interpretation and review. Thus, the Court would be doing the role of legislating. It is the role of Congress or legislators, not Courts, to widen the scope or definition of sex in order to protect people under the statute. On this note, the Court would not engage in the role of the Congress.
Ulane as Female and Title VII
Initially, the trial judge established that the company discriminated against the pilot based on the Count II as a transsexual (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). Moreover, the judge proceeded that Ulane was a woman, and the company discriminated against her because of being female. The District Court judge findings and conclusions concerning sexual discrimination against Ulane were on the basis that the plaintiff was considered as female or a transsexual. This was an insufficient claim to support the judge’s findings and conclusion that the company discriminated the pilot because she was female. The judge based his argument on the finding that the company did not want a transsexual pilot.
Ulane can uphold any personal belief regarding her sexual status and individual identity as she wishes. She proceeded for a reassignment surgery, took female enhancing hormones, changed her appearance, obtained a new Illinois birth certificate as female, and even sought for FAA pilot’s certificate as a woman (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). On this note, the society regarded Ulane as a woman. However, the Court of Appeal observed that even if it was simple to create a woman from a man, the case did not rest on such facts. The case would be valid if only the company had treated Ulane less favorably as female relative to her male colleagues. In this case, Title VII would apply in the case of Ulane, but it would not outlaw discrimination based on transsexual claims. Hence, any transsexuals who claim discrimination based on their sex, be it male or female, are not doing so within the context of Title VII. Clearly, from the evidence, if the company did discriminate the pilot, then the discrimination was not on sex, but rather on the fact that Ulane was a transsexual employee. In other words, Ulane was biologically male who used female hormones, psychiatric services, cross-dressed, and underwent a reassignment surgery to change her body parts in order to appear and act as female.
Rules of the case
Ulane’s case sought to expand the definition of sex from its original meaning under Title VII. However, there are prior cases regarding interpretation of sex.
Previously, Courts have maintained that the term sex, as applied in the statute, differed significantly from sexual preference, for example in the cases of Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659, 662, (9th Cir. 1977); v. Budget Marketing, Inc., 667 F.2d 748, 750, (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). The District Court noted this fact and held that homosexuals and transvestites did not get any protection under Title VII (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). However, it claimed that transsexuals were different from homosexuals and transvestites because they had sexual identity issues. Further, the judge maintained that the term sex was synonymous with sexual identity, but not sexual preference. In both cases, District Courts held that discrimination against transsexuals did not fall under the realm of Title VII. Hence, the use of the term sex in Title VII reflects biological male or female, and any additional or new definition can only originate from the Congress.
The District Court judge based his conclusion on the fact that sex was not a matter of chromosomes, but rather a psychological issue that involved an individual’s self-perception. In addition, it was a social issue based on the perception of society toward a person. Further, the District judge supported his conclusion by claiming that Title VII was a counteractive Act with moderate interpretation.
Although Title VII may be a remedial statute or others may define sex to reflect individual’s sexual identity, the main aim of the Court is to interpret the constitution as intended by the Congress when it outlawed discrimination based on sex. For instance, in the case of United States Department of Labor v. Forsyth Energy, Inc., 666 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th Cir. 1981), the District judge maintained that the Congress expressed its purpose not to include homosexuals under Title VII (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). However, the District judge claimed that his decision in the case of Ulane covered a wide interpretation of the term sex that reflected Title VII’s interpretation because transsexuals were not the same as homosexuals. Moreover, the Congress never had transsexuals in mind when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the contrary, the Court of Appeal noted that homosexuals and transvestites did not have any protection under Title VII so were transsexuals.
Application of the case
Initially, the District Court judge held that the company had violated Title VII by discriminating against Ulane because she was transsexual (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). The judge also ruled that the company had discriminated against Ulane on being female.
Contrary to this ruling, the Court of Appeal observed that the District Court judge did not established factual grounds necessary to rule that the company had discriminated the plaintiff on the ground of being female. The judge ruled that sexual discrimination applied in full force irrespective whether the plaintiff was considered female or a transsexual. The Court of Appeal noted that this was insufficient conclusion and findings and could not support the transsexual or female claim because the judge only considered the claim that the company did not need a transsexual as a pilot.
The society, the reassignment surgery, breast-stimulating hormones, changes in her appearance or the new birth certificate could show or prove that the pilot was indeed female (Karen Frances Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, No. 81 C 4411. N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1983). Nevertheless, anybody who believed that a woman could come from the remains of a man missed the argument because the case did not rest on these claims. Title VII did not recognize transsexuals.
Title VII was a dictum that relied on to statutory interpretations. In this sense, unless otherwise clarified, words or phrases maintained their ordinary, common meanings during the interpretation of the constitution (see Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 62 L. Ed. 2d 199, 100 S. Ct. 311 (1979)). Hence, the term sex in Title VII, which outlawed discrimination based on sex, implied that one could only discriminate against a woman because she was woman or a man because he was a man. In other words, the phrase in Title VII did not protect persons with sexual identity issues. This was an individual, who was naturally born with a female body or a male body but believed that he or she was an opposite sex. In this regard, prohibition against an individual’s sex discrimination was not the same as discrimination against an individual’s sexual identity crisis. As a result, the phrase in Title VII against discrimination did not mean anything beyond the plain, ordinary, common meaning.
Based on this interpretation of Title VII, the Court of Appeal reversed the District Court judge’s decision. The company did not fire Ulane on discrimination against sexual identity, but rather because of being a transsexual, which was a sexual identity disorder.
Conclusion
A transsexual pilot filed a case against her employer by citing that the employer disregarded and violated Title VII. The District Court of Illinois held that the company violated Title VII based on discrimination against the pilot. Eastern Airlines appealed this ruling. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling by asserting that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination against transsexuals and the District Court judge did not establish any reasonable facts to rule that the company discriminated against Ulane even if she was a transsexual pilot (Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP 1).
Since the company did not discriminate against Ulane as a woman and Title VII did not provide a wide range of interpretation with regard to outlaw of discrimination against people based on their biological formation, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial Court, and dismissed all claims against Eastern Airlines.
The Congress did not have transsexual persons in mind when it enacted the Civil Rights Act 1964. There was a sex amendment to the Act, which failed to account for transsexual individuals. Moreover, the Congress has attempted on several times to make changes to the Act in order to recognize a sexual identity crisis, but these attempts have failed. The case showed the failure of the Civil Rights Act 1964 to protect everyone.
Works Cited
Associated Press. “Karen Ulane, 48, Pilot; Who Had Sex Change. 24 May 1989. Web.
Chicago Tribune. Pilot loses sex change case appeal. 1985.
Gini, Al. Case Study: Sexual Discrimination at Eastern Airlines. 1988. Web.
Karen Frances ULANE Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, No. 84-1431 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 742 F.2d 1081, 1984. Web.
Karen Frances ULANE v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. 1983. Web.
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP. Sex Discrimination, Gender Identity and Title VII: No Limits, or New Boundaries? 2006. Web.